lii'' 

iti'lii: 

■liii'iiiiili! 

1  I  t    ifli*  ! 


A^  PARTES  OKTrnONIS 


AS  DISCUSSED  BY 

VIRGILIUS  MARO  GRAMMATICUS 

WITH  SOME  OBSERVATIONS  UPON  HIS  INFLECTION  AND  SYNTAX 

BY 

CLEMENT  ORESTES  MEREDITH 


i:  :,■ 


iil 


A  DISSERTATION 


SUBMITTED  TO  THE  BOARD  OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  OF  THE  JOHNS 

HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  IN  CONFORMITY  WITH  THE 

REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BALTIMORE 


1912 


THE  PARTES  ORATIONIS 

AS  DISCUSSED  BY 

VIRGILIUS  MARO  GRAMMATICUS 

WITH  SOME  OBSERVATIONS  UPON  HIS  INFLECTION  AND  SYNTAX 

BY 

CLEMENT  ORESTES  MEREDITH 


A  DISSERTATION 


SUBMITTED  TO  THE  BOARD  OF  UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  OF  THE  JOHNS 

HOPKINS  UNIVERSITY  IN  CONFORMITY  WITH  THE 

REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE  OF 

DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BALTIMORE 
1912 


» •    ,     :  i 


CONTENTS 


Bibliography  5 

Introduction  9 

The  Parts  of  Speech  15 

Nomen  17 

Qualitas  17 

Comparatio  23 

Genus  24 

Numerus  26 

Figura  27 

Casus  29 

Declinatio  30 

Pronomen  34 

Declinatio  37 

Verbum  42 

Qualitas  (modi)                       •  45 

Qualitas  (formae)  52 

Coniugatio  55 

Numerus  60 

Figura  61 

Persona  61 

Significatio,  or  Genus  62 

Tempora  64 

Participium  66 

Adverbium  69 

Praeposito  70 

Coniunctio  70 

Interiectio  71 

Conclusion  73 

Vita  75 

NOTE:  Page  30,  heading  Declaratio  should  be  Dechnatio. 


34662J 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


Babbler,  J.  J.,  Beitrage  zu  einer  Geschichte  der  lateinischen.  Gram- 
matik  im  Mittelalter  (Halle  a.  S.,  1885). 

Bonnet,  M.,  Le  Latin  de  Gregoire  de  Tours  (Paris,  1890). 

BUECHELER,  F.,  Grundriss  der  lateinischen  Declination  (Bonn,  1879). 

COLLIGNON,  A.,  Note  sur  une  grammaire  latine  manuscrite  du  viiie  sie- 
cle  appartenant  a  la  Bibliotheque  de  Nancy,  contenant 
des  fragments  inedits  de  Virgilius  Maro,  Revue  de  Phi- 
lologie,  Vol.  VII.  p.  13-22. 

DlEZ,  F.,  Romanische  Grammatik  (Bonn,  1882). 

Draeger,  a.,  Historische  Syntax  der  lateinischen  Sprache    (Leipzig. 

1878). 

Ernault,  E.,  De  Virgilio  Marone  Grammatico  Tolosano  (Paris,  1886). 

Geyer,  p.,  Beitrage  zur  Kenntnis  des  gallischen  Lateins,    Archiv   II. 

25  f. 

Grammtici  Graeci:  Dionysii   Thracis  ars  grammatica,    ed.    G.    Uhlig 
(Leipzig,  1883) ;  ApoUonii  Dyscoli   quae   supersunt,    ed. 
R.  Schneider  (Leipzig,  1910). 

Grammatici  Latini,  ex  recensions  Henrici  Keilii  (Lipsiae,  1857-1880. 

Huemer,  J.,  Die  Epitomae  des  Grarmiatikers  Virgilius  Maro  nach 
dem  Fragmentum  Vindobonense  19556  (Wien,  1882). 

Jeep,  L.,  Zur  Geschichte  der  Lehre  von  den  Redetheilen  bei  den  latei- 
nischen Grammatikern  (Leipzig,  1893). 

Job,  L.,      De  grammaticis  vocabulis  apud  Latinos  (Paris,  1893). 

Landgraf,  G.,  Historische  Grammatik  de,  lateinischen  Sprache.  Drit- 
ter  Band,  erstes  Heft.  (Leipzig,  1903). 

Manitius,  M.,  Geschichte  der  lateinischen  Literatur  des  Mittelalters. 
ErsterTeil  (Munchen,  1911). 

Meyer-Lubke  W.,  Grammatik  der  romanischen    Sprachen    (Leipzig- 
1890-1894. 

Nettleship,  H.,  The  Study  of  Latin  Grammar  among  the  Romans  in 
the  First  Century  A.  D.  Journal  of  Philology,  Vol.  xv 
(1886),  reprinted  in  Lectures  and  Essays,  second  series 
Oxford,  1895). 

Neue-Wagener,  Lateinische  Formenlehre  (Berlin,  1902.) 

Rogers, M.,  L'enseignement  des  lettres  classiques  d'Ausonea  Alcuin 
Paris,  1905.    Chap.  Ill,  sec.  3,    pp.  110-126,  is  devoted  to 
'Le  grammarien  Virgile'. 


ScHMALZ  J.  H.,  Lateinische  Grammatik:  Syntax  und  Stilistik  [Pvliin- 
chen,  lylOJ. 

Stangl,  Th.,  Die  grammatischen  Schriften  des  GalliersVirgilius  Maro 
auf  Grund  einer  erstmaligen  Vergleichung  der  Hand- 
schriften  von  Paris  und  Neapel  (Miinchen,  1891). 

Strong,  H.  A., On  the  Grammarian,  Virgilius  Maro.  Classical  Review, 
XXV  [1911]  70-71.  This  is  merely  a  summary  of  an 
article  by  H.  Zimmer. 

Thurot,  C.,  Notices  et  extraits  de  divers  manuscrits  latins  pour  ser- 
vir  a  I'histoire  des  doctrines  grammaticales  au  moyen 
age  (Paris,  1868). 

Zimmer,  H.,  Der  Gasconger  Virgilius  Maro  Grammaticus  in  Irland 
(Sitzungsberichte  derKoniglich  Preussischen  Akademie 
der  Wissenschaften,  Jahrg.  1910,  1031-1098). 


Editions  used: 


Huemer,  J.,  Virgilii  Maronis  Grammatici   Opera    (Lip- 
siae,  1886). 

Mai,  Aug.,  Classici  Auctores,  V,  1-149. 


THE  PARTES  ORATIONIS  AS  DISCUSSED  BY 
VIRGILIUS  MARO  GRAMMATICUS 

WITH  SOME  OBSERVATIONS  UPON  HIS  INFLECTION 

AND  SYNTAX 


INTRODUCTION 

Very  little  is  known  of  the  late  Latin  grammarian  who 
calls  himself  Virgilius  Maro  Grammaticus.  Even  his  name 
was  assumed,  and  his  date  can  only  be  conjectured.  Almost 
all  that  can  be  said  of  him  with  certainty  is  that  he  be- 
longed to  Southwestern  Gaul,  and  that  he  was  a  Christian. 

The  name  Virgilius  Maro  was  bestowed  upon  him  by  his 
teacher  'Aeneas':  (92,18)  unde  Aeneas  cum  me  vidisset 
ingeniosum  hoc  me  vocabulo  iussit  nominari  dicens:  hie 
filius  mens  Maro  vocabitur,  quia  in  eo  antiqui  Maronis 
spiritus  redivivit.  In  this  same  passage  (92,  21)  he  speaks 
of  his  grandfather  'Martulis':  hie  in  arte  grammatica  di- 
ligentissimus.  And  at  28, 1  he  mentions  an  uncle  named 
'Samminius'. 

He  is  commonly  assigned  to  the  seventh  century,  though 
various  dates  have  been  suggested  for  him,  ranging  all  the 
way  from  the  fifth  century  to  the  ninth.  Angelo  Mai 
(Class.  Auct.  V,  ix)  identified  him  with  the  Virgilius  Maro 
who  is  mentioned  by  Ennodius,  Carm.  ii,  118, 

In  tantum  prisci  defluxit  fama  Maronis, 
Ut  te  Virgilium  saecula  nostra  darent, 

and  ii,  120, 

Captivo  stultus  congaudet  stemmate  vatis. 
Non  est  Virgilius,  dicitur  iste  tamen. 


[10] 

This,  however,  has  met  with  very  little  favor  from  other 
scholars.  F.  Osann  (Beitrage,  i-ii,  p.  126  f.)  assigned  him 
to  the  ninth  century— on  the  inconclusive  reasoning  that 
his  Latin  is  not  very  good,  and  that  his  contemporaries 
were  fond  of  assuming  the  names  of  the  great  writers  of 
antiquity.  1  L.  Traube  (Hermes,  xxiv,  647)  set  a  definite 
limit  by  finding  in  one  of  the  letters  of  Aldhelmus  a  quo- 
tation which  Virgilius  had  already  used.  That  is,  Aldhelmus 
(p.  95  Giles)  quotes  a  line  from  one  of  the  grammarian's 
authorities,  Glengus:  Si  veroquippiam,inscitiasuppeditante, 
garrula  frontose  convincitur  pagina  prompsisse:  ut  versi- 
dicus  ait: 

Digna  fiat  fante  glingio  guro  fugax  fambulo. 

And  this  is  to  be  connected  with  Virgilius,  121,  9:  verum- 
tamen  ne  in  illud  Glengi  incedam,  quod  cuidam  conflictum 
fugienti  dicere  fidenter  ausus  est  gurgo  inquit  fugax  fam- 
bulo  dignus  est,  etc.  M.  Manitius  has  proposed  a  limit  in 
the  other  direction,  on  the  ground  that  many  of  Virgilius' 
etymologies  are  derived  from  Isidorus.^  His  'floruit'  would 
thus  fall  later  than  Isidorus  (d.  636)  and  earlier  than  Ald- 
helmus (d.  709),  and  he  should  probably  be  assigned  to  the 
middle  of  the  seventh  century.  H.  Zimmer,  by  an  elaborate 
argument,  has  placed  him,  at  the  latest,  at  the  end  of  the 
fifth  century  or  about  the  beginning  of  the  sixth,  and  set 
his  'floruit'  about  two  generations  later  than  Ausonius,  one 
generation  later  than  Sulpicius  Severus.^ 


1  So  the  group  of  scholars  who  were  gathered  at  the  Court  of  Charle- 
magne used  to  call  each  other  by  the  names  of  great  ancient  poets. 
Alcuin  was  Flaccus,  one  of  his  disciples  was  Naso,  Angilbert  was  Ho- 
merus.  See  Ad.  Ebert,  AUgemeine  Geschichte  der  Literatur  des 
Mittelalters  im  Abendlande,  ii  64. 

-  Geschichte  der  lateinischen  Literatur  des  Mittelalters,  Miinchen, 
1911,  p.  120. 

3  Sitzungsberichte  der  Koniglich  Preussischen  Akademieder  Wissen- 
schaften,  Berlin,  1910,  p.  1067. 


[11] 

Virgilius  himself  tells  us  indirectly  that  he  was  a  Gaul: 
(137,  30)  in  quibusdam  Gallorum  nostrorum  scriptis;  and 
his  expression  'bigerro  sermone  clefabo'  (8, 13)  apparently 
refers  to  the  district  of  Bigorre,  just  north  of  the  Pyrenees. 
A  reference  in  Abbo  Floriacensis  indicates  that  he  lived  in 
Toulouse:  Scripulus  appenditur  xvi  granis  lentis,  licet  Vir- 
gilius Tolosanus  in  suis  opusculis  asserat  pensari  xviii 
granis  hordei,  etc.^  And  in  the  title  of  the  Fragmentum 
Mediolanense  he  is  called  Virgilius  presbyter  Hispanus. 
Zimmer  (op.  cit.  1071)  argues  that  this  last  indiction  is  not 
inconsistent  with  the  others;  that  from  415  to  the  middle 
of  the  sixth  century  the  West  Goths  held  sway  both  north 
and  south  of  the  Pyrenees,  and  that  from  507  on  the  region 
north  of  the  Pyrenees  might  very  well  be  regarded  merely 
as  an  appanage  of  their  Spanish  kingdom.  He  further 
maintains  (p.  1092  f . )  that  Virgilius  visited  Ireland  in  the 
last  quarter  of  the  fifth  century,  and  that  he  had  a  very 
considerable  influence  upon  the  language  of  Irish  poetry 
for  the  next  two  hundred  years.  And  a  recent  conjecture 
by  H.  A.  Strong,  Hihernorum  for  Hibonorum  (26,  3),  is 
offered  as  confirming  this  opinion. ^ 

A  single  passage  may  be  quoted  to  show  that  Virgilius 
was  a  Christian:  (108,  17)  in  tribus  divinae  unitatem  sub- 
stantiae  personis  coaeternaliter  subsistentem.^  He  was  thus 
a  'Homoousian'  a  fact  which  qualified  him  (in  Zimmer's 
theory,  p.  1094)  to  take  part  in  the  great  exodus  of  Ortho- 


1  Mai,  Class.  Auct.  v,  349,  n.  1.  The  statement  here  ascribed  to 
Virgilius  Tolosanus  does  not  appear  in  our  Virgilius'  extant  works, 
and  it  may  come  from  some  other  writer  of  the  same  name.  Still, 
Abbo's  Virgilius  Tolosanus  and  our  Vii-gilius  are  now  commonly  regar- 
ded as  one  and  the  same  person;  cf.,  e.  g.,  E.  Ernault  (p,  11):  Tolosa- 
num  Virgilium  esse  nostrum  censeo,  quia  certum  est  scholam  eius  in 
Aquitania  tloiuisse,  ubi  Hiberni,  qui  cum  eadem  regione  saepe  com- 
municabant,  illam  doctrinam  novcrunt,  susceperunt  et  ipsi  postea 
Anglo-Saxones  docuerunt. 

■'  Classical  Review,  xxv,  (1911)  201. 

•'  For  other  evidence,  see  107,  7;  129,  12;  133,  20;  175,  12. 


[12] 

dox  Christians  from  Gascony  to  Ireland  before  the  perse- 
cution of  the  Arian  West  Goths. 

His  writings,  so  far  as  they  have  survived,  are  all  of  a 
grammatical  character.  There  are  fifteen  Epitomae:  1  De 
Sapientia,  2  De  Litera,  3  De  Syllaba,  4  De  Metris,  5  De 
Nomine,  6  De  Pronomine,  7  De  Verbo,  8  De  Adverbio, 
9  De  Participio,  10  De  Coniunctione,  11  De  Praepositione, 
12  De  Interiectione,  13  De  Scinderatione  Fonorum,  14  De 
Cognominationibus  Nominum  atque  Verborum,  15  De  Ca- 
talogo  Grammaticorum.  There  are  also  eight  Epistolae, 
devoted  to  the  eight  parts  of  speech.  He  speaks  himself 
of  an  earlier  set  of  fifteen  Epistolae  sent  to  his  young 
friend  Fabianus:  (107,  5)  in  xv  epistolarum  Affricam  mis- 
sarum  volumine.  At  25,  1  he  mentions  a  metrical  treatise 
which  he  had  written:  de  safico  autem  et  heroico  versuum 
metro  in  quadam  epistola,  quam  inter  duodecim  ad  Dona- 
tum  Romam  missimus,  discribsisse  me  suflficienter  memini. 
And  at  175,  11  he  mentions  a  bit  of  religious  controversy 
in  which  he  had  engaged:  cum  librum  de  mundi  creatione 
commentarium  adversus  paganos  ediderim. 

The  very  subjects  of  some  of  his  Epitomae  may  prepare 
the  reader  for  a  somewhat  unusual  treatment  of  Latin 
grammar.  The  first  and  firteenth  give  some  account  of  the 
twelve  dialects  of  Latin,  the  thirteenth  gives  examples  and 
rules  for  various  kinds  of  cryptic  writing.^  Such  topics 
suggest  that  Virgilius  is  of  less  importance  for  the  study 
of  late  Latin  in  general  or  of  Gallic  Latin  as  a  whole  than 
for  the  specific  forms  of  Latin  which  were  written  and 
spoken  in  Southwestern  Gaul  in  his  day. 

His  own  position  as  a  grammarian  is  the  more  puzzling, 
because  he  never  quotes  a  classical  author,  or  even  one  of 
the  Grammatici  Latini.    Some  of  his  authorities,  like  him- 


»  Zimmer,  op.  cit.,  1038  f.,  finds  parallels  in  Old  Irish  poetry.  For 
the  twelve  dialects  of  Latin,  cf.,  also,  Hisperica  Farnina  (ed.  Jenkin- 
son,  Cambridge,  1908,  p.  5) :  Bis  senos  exploro  vechros  qui  ausonicam 
lacerant  palatham. 


[13] 

self,  had  borrowed  ancient  and  honorable  names:  Cato, 
Cicero,  Donatus,  Homerus,  Honoratus,  Horatius,  Lucanus, 
Propetius,  Quintilianus,  Terrentius.  Others  bore  such 
names  as  Balapsidus,  Bregandus  Lugenicus,  Falanges, 
Fassica,  Iscenus,  Mitterius,  Sabatinus,  Siva,  But  these 
men,  if  they  ever  existed  at  all,  may  all  have  been  his  own 
contemporaries,  or  residents  of  his  own  region.^  There  is 
a  similar  variety  in  the  names  of  his  teachers.  These  were, 
Aeneas:  (34,  1)  cum  me  Aeneas  sciscientem  adhuc  rudem- 
que  discipulum  lucide  vellet  inbuere;^  Galbungus:  (60,  13) 
ab  omni  scola  Galbungi,  quam  et  ego  adivi;  Gratianus: 
(63,  2)  Gratiano  magistro  fretus,  cuius  in  scola  decem  an- 

nos  feci;   Reginus  Cornelius:  (133,  18)  qui  me  quoque 

docuit;  Sulpita  and  Istrius:    (24,  7)    praeceptores  nostri  et 
praecipue  Sulpita  atque  Istrius. 

Some  of  the  theories,  and  some  of  the  incidents,  which 
Virgilius  reports  give  one  a  rather  discouraging  picture  of 
the  grammatical  studies  of  his  country  and  time.  For  ex- 
ample, Galbungus  and  Terrentius  once  debated  for  fourteen 
days  and  as  many  nights  over  the  vocative  of  'ego':  (123, 
16)  quattuordecim  diebus  totidemque  noctibus  in  conten- 
tione  mansisse  reiferuntur.  Regulus  and  Sedulus  carried 
on  a  still  longer  and  more  heated  controversy  over  the  in- 
choative verbs:  (138,  25)  non  minima  quaestio  habita  est, 
quae  usque  ad  gladiorum  pene  conflictum  pervenit.  quin- 
decim  nam.que  noctibus  totidemque  simul  diebus  insomes 
et  indapes  mansere,  tribus  militibus  utrimique  sumptis. 
And  the  'catalogus  grammaticorum'  (87,  23)  reminds  one 
of  Trimolchio's  account  of  the  origin  of  Corinthian  bronze: 


•  At  49,  17  he  reports  that  he  once  attended  a  congress  of  not  less 
than  thirty  grammarians.  It  is  hardly  safe  to  assume,  as  many  schol- 
ars have  done,  that  Virgilius  invented  all  his  authorities.  Manitius 
suggests  (op.  cit.,  121  n.  1)  that  foreign  names  of  places  are  some- 
times used  to  deyignate  places  in  Gaul  —  for  example,  Arabia,  Endia, 
Africa  (92,  12)  —  that  perhaps  Africa  (107,  5;  1G4,  8)  means  Spain, 
Europa  (109,  15;  164,  8)  means  France. 

2  See,  also,  60,14;  62,23;  92,18. 


[14] 

Primus  igitur  fuit  quidam  senex  Donatus  apud  Troiam, 
quern  ferunt  mille  vixisse  annos.  hie  cum  ad  Romulum,  a 
quo  condita  est  Roma  urbs,  venisset,  gratulantissime  ab 
eodem  susceptus,    IIII  continues   ibi   fecit   annos,    scolam 

construens  et  innumerabilia   opuscula   relinquens fuit 

itidem  apud  Troiam  quidam  Virgilius  eiusdem  Donati  audi- 
tor, qui  in  discribendis  versibus  diligentissimus  erat,  qui 
LXX  volumina  de  ratione  metri  scribens  et  epistolam  ad 
Virgilium  Assianum  missam  de  verbi  explanatione ....  hunc 
vidi  meis  oculis,  et  puerulo  mihi  notas  caraxavit.  It  may 
be  said,  however,  that  our  author's  own  Latinity  is  much 
better  than  these  passages  might  lead  one  to  suspect. 

This  statement  may  be  made  with  confidence,  as  it  rests 
upon  a  somewhat  detailed  examination  of  his  usage.  The 
following  investigation  attempts  in  a  similar  manner  to 
gain  a  more  definite  idea  of  his  ability  and  training  as  a 
grammarian.  It  proceeds  upon  the  well-known  fact  that 
grammar  in  general,  and  antique  grammar  in  particular, 
is  both  exact  and  conservative  to  a  remarkable  degree. 
The  varying  theories  of  individual  scholars  or  of  different 
schools  are  clearly  marked  in  scholastic  tradition.  Techni- 
cal terms,  definitions,  the  arrangement  and  division  of 
topics,  even  the  examples  chosen  for  paradigms  and  illus- 
trations, are  passed  down  from  generation  to  generation. 
In  this  preliminary  investigation,  therefore,  I  have  con- 
fined myself  to  the  parts  of  speech  and  have  applied  these 
tests  to  Virgilius  by  comparing  his  statements  with  parallel 
material  in  the  corpus  of  Latin  Grammarians.  In  some 
cases,  unfortunately,  the  chronological  sequence  of  these 
grammarians  cannot  be  certainly  established.  Experience, 
however,  has  shown  that  in  this  particular  investigation 
no  important  point  has  been  seriously  affected  by  lack  of 
definite  dates. 


[15] 


The  Parts  of  Speech  ^ 

Virgilius  suggests  (5,4  ff. )  that  the  parts  of  speech  should 
be  called  partes  latinitatis,  ^  rather  than  partes  orationis. 
For  latinitas,  which  is  derived  from  latitude  ipsius  linguae, 
is  a  broader  term  than  oratio,  which  properly  means  the 
ornate  language  of  the  orator:  (5,10)  haec  autem  latinitas 
propter  oratorum  ornatissimum  leporem  oratio  nuncupatur, 
unde  et  partes  orationis  intellegendae  sunt  partes  latinita- 
tis. This  discussion  is  a  more  or  less  distant  echo  of  such 
definitions  or  derivations  of  oratio  as  Scaurus  ap.  Diomed. 
(K.  1300,19);  Dositheus,  (K.  VII  389,8);  Charisius  (K.  I 
152,11) ;  Explanat.  (K.  IV  487,23) ;  Pompeius  (K.  V96,19) ; 
Victorinus  (K.  VI  192,3);  Audax,  (K.  VII  324,9) ;  Priscian, 
(K.  II  53,27).  'Partes  orationis'  (hi*pti  toCXoyov)  appears  first 
in  Varro,— see  Job,  p.  162,— and  becomes  traditional.  The 
attempt  to  solve  the  difficulty  by  substituting  Latinitatis 
for  orationis  has  not  been  observed  outside  of  Virgilius  and 
his  teacher  'Aeneas'. 

At  107,3  he  says  that  there  are  eight  parts  of  speech: 
orationis  partes  octo  sunt.  This  is  the  number  recognized 
by  Palaemon,  (see  Quintilian,  I  4,20),  and  by  all  the  Gram- 
matici  Latini  except  Priscian,  who  omits  the  interjection 
and  gives  only  seven  (K.  II  55,6  ft'.). 

At  42, 13  he  reports  that  some  grammarians  counted  the 
pronomen  with  the  nomen,  the  participle  with  the  verb, 
the  conjunction  with  the  adverb;  and  so  made  only  five 
parts:  in  divisione  omnium  partium  orationis  alii  octo  par- 
tes dixere,  nonnuUi  eundem  numerum  minuentes  nomen 
et  pronomen  in  eandem   partem  redigendum  esse   putave- 


1  For  the  parallel  references  to  the  Grammatici  Latini,  see  Jeep,  p. 
122. 

^  So  his  teacher  'Aeneas'  said  (26,10) :  ergo  principalis  pars  latinita- 
tis est. 


[16] 

runt,  verbum  quoque  et  participium  in  unum  conglome- 
rantes  absurdum  dixerunt  velut  a  corpore  membrum  ita  a 
verbo  separare  participium.  adverbia  autem  et  coniunc- 
tiones  unam  partem  esse  putaverunt  sequestratis  praepos- 
sitione  et  interiectione  atque  ita  erat,  ut  pro  octo  partibus 
quinque  annumeraverint.  This  division  into  five  parts  was 
originally  due  to  the  Stoics  (Servius,  K.  IV  428,  13;  Cledo- 
nius,  K.  V  34,  23;  Pompeius,  K.  V  135,  26;  Priscian,  K.  II 
54,  8).  For  a  discussion  of  this  Stoic  theory,  see  Jeep,  p. 
123. 

Virgilius  discusses  the  parts  of  speech  in  the  order 
1  nomen,  2  pronomen,  3  verbum,  4  adverbium,  5  particip- 
ium, 6  coniunctio,  7  praepositio,  8  interiectio.  This  is  the 
order  of  the  grammarians,  with  the  exception  of  Probus 
(K.V  57,18),  who  gives  the  verbum  the  last  place;  and 
Priscian,  who  gives  verbum  the  second  place,  participium 
the  third,  pronomen  the  fourth  (K.  II  54,8;  55i.),  and 
omits  the  interjection.  He  remarks  that  the  Hiberni  put 
the  verb  first:  (26,  4)  cum  in  Hibonorum^  elocutione  et 
conpossitione  primatum  estimatur  verbum.  But  his  teacher 
Aeneas  insisted  that  the  first  place  should  be  given  to  the 
nomen:  (26,5)  super  hoc  Aeneas  X  libros  edidit,  ex  quibus 
ego  unum  tantum  sumere  oportunum  puto.  quassum  no- 
men inquit  secundum  sensum  principium  est,  non  secundum 
appellationem.  cum  enim  nascitur  homo,  antequam  rem  ali- 
quam  agat  vel  discat  vel  sciat,  nomen  illi  inditur.  nomen  ergo 
principalis  pars  latinitatis  est.  The  nearest  parallel  to  this 
statement  of  Aeneas  is  a  statement  in  Pompeius  (K.  V  96, 
27) :  et  bene  primum  positum  est  nomen.  non  enim  potes 
tractare  de  littera,  de  voce,  nisi  prius  scias,  quid  est  hoc 
ipsum.  idcirco  quoniam  nomina  primigenia  sunt  in  rebus 
omnibus,  haec  prima  debent  poni.  nemo  enim  potest  trac- 
tare primo  de  aliis  partibus.      For  the  nomen  and  verbum 


1  H.  A.  Strong  conjectures  Hibernorum,  Classical  Review  xxv  (1911) 
p.  201. 


[17] 

as  'principales  partes'  seeDonatus,  K.  IV  372,26;  Servius, 
K.  IV  428,8;  Consentius,  K.  V  338,6. 

The  Nomen^ 

Virgilius'  conception  of  the  nomen  can  be  gathered  only 
from  a  comparison  of  his  own  treatment  of  it  with  that  of 
the  other  grammarians.  He  himself  does  not  define  it. 
Donatus  (K.  IV  355,4)  defines  it  as  follows:  nomen  est  pars 
orationis  cum  casu  corpus  aut  rem  proprie  communiterque 
significans.  The  definition  of  Priscian  is  the  same  in  sub- 
stance (K.  II  56,28).  Charisius  (K.  I  152,16)  has:  cum 
casu  sine  tempore.  Later  grammarians  omit  cum  casu: 
see,  for  instance,  Consentius  (K.  V  338,10),  Cledonius  (K. 
V  34,  26).  Virgilius,  to  judge  from  his  treatment  of  the 
nomen,  would  probably  say:  'nomen'  is  a  part  of  speech 
(26.3)^  having  qualitas  ^26.12^  comparatio  ^^a.is)  ,  genus  ^=^^'^\nu- 
merus  (32,14)^  figura  ^^•^\  casus  ^=^5- ^2)  ^  This  outline  and  order 
is  found  only  in  Donatus  (K.  IV  355,6),  and  Consentius 
(K.V  338,16).  Charisius  (K.  I  153,6)  does  not  include 
comparation,  and  Priscian  (K.  II  57,8)  has  species  instead 
of  qualitas.  In  Diomedes  (K.I  320,27)  qualitas  stands  last. 

Nomen,  Qualitas^ 

The  Grammatici  Latini  divide  nouns  into  propia  (Kvpi«), 
and  appellativa  (irpoo-ri^opiKd) ,  or,  as  we  say,  'proper'  and 
'common'.  ^  The  terms  appear  first  with  Julius  Romanus, 
and  are  used  by  all  the  Grammatici  Latini.      Definition  as 


'  See  Jeep,  p.  124. 

2  See  Jeep,  p.  125. 

3  So,  for  instance,  Diomedes  (K.  I  320,29),  qualitas  nominum  biper- 
tita  eat.  aut  enim  propria  sunt  nomina  aut  appellativa:  quaedam  et 
propria  sunt  et  appellativa. 


[18] 

such  is  generally  clear  and  true  to  the  tradition.  ^  Confu- 
sion and  incompleteness,  however,  in  their  sphere  and  ap- 
plication is  initial  with  the  Greek  Grammarians,  and  recurs 
with  monotonous  regularity  in  their  Roman  followers.  Only 
Pompeius  (K.  V  139,25;  cf.  Explanat.  in  Donat,  K.  IV 
490,  37)  seems  to  realize  that  these  divisions  should  be  ex- 
clusive and  cover  the  entire  field.  Others,  and  for  that 
matter  even  Pompeius  himself,  discuss  primitives,  deriva- 
tives, patronymics,  etc.,  either  under  appellativa  or  as 
further  divisions  of  nouns  in  general.  Sometimes  the  no- 
men  proprium  is  defined  simply  as  consisting  of  praenomen, 
nomen,  cognomen,  agnomen,  and  in  no  case  is  the  discus- 
sion of  these  types  omitted. 

In  his  treatment  of  qualitas  Virgilius  is  unusually  diffi- 
cult and  obscure. 

'The  qualitas  of  nouns, '  he  says  ^26.12)^  'jg  not  two- fold, 
as  some  think,  but  manifold;  it  consists  of  many  different 
species.  Nevertheless,  in  their  discussions  of  nomina  pro- 
pria and  nomina  appellativa  some  persons  insist  upon  as- 
suming that  there  is  such  a  thing  in  Latin  as  a  nomen 
propium  (i.  e.,  a  noun  proper  and  singular  to  and  by  itself). 
The  fact  is  that  (no  Latin  noun  is  proprium  in  this  sense), 
all  Latin  nouns,  for  that  matter  all  Latin  words,  are  so 
closely  interrelated  that  each  depends  upon  the  other  and 
is  derived  or  'named'  from  it.  Proprius,  therefore,  as  ap- 
plied to  nouns,  must  not  be  given  its  obvious  and  ordinary 
meaning;  it  has  a  certain  deeper  and  more  subtle  signifi- 
cance which  must  be  divined.  Now  proprius  has  two 
meanings;  it  connotes  the  idea   of  specialitas,    something 


,  ^  So  Charisiua  (K.  I  533,12),  propria  sunt  nomina  quae  specialiter 
proprieque  dicuntur. ..  .appellativa  nomina  sunt  quae  generaliter 
communiterque  dicuntur.  Diomedes  (K.  1320,39),  propria  sunt  quae 
propriam  et  circumscriptam  qualitatem  specialiter  significant  .... 
appellativa  nomina  sunt  quae  generaliter  communiterque  dicuntur.  Con- 
sentius  (K.  V  338,19),  appellativa  enim  nomina  a  genere  et  specie 
manant:  propria  at)  individuis. 


[19] 

inherent,  special  and  peculiar  (the  obvious  and  usual  mean- 
ing discussed  above),  or  it  means  superiority  in  position. 
This  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  proprius  is  applied  to  per- 
sons who,  because  of  their  rank  or  fortune,  are  ascribed  to 
the  foremost  position  in  a  state;  hence,  'Cicero',  writing  of 
a  certain  Roman  named  Justinus,  began  thus:  'lustinus 
autem  proprius  omnium  sese  obdedit,  that  is,  primus  om- 
nium'. Nomina  propria,  therefore,  should  be  called  nomina 
primaria,  as  Roma,  Carthago.  Further,  nomina  communia 
are  of  inferior  rank,  as  civitas. 

As  regards  res  and  corpus,  many  are  at  a  loss.  Res  is  a 
Hebrew  letter  which  means  'head'.  ^  Res,  therefore,  is  the 
equivalent  of  nomen  primarmm.  Hence,  just  as  an  army 
of  inferior  rank  (cf.  what  is  said  of  nomina  communia 
above)  is  lead  by  a  primarius,  a  person  of  foremost  position, 
so  all  the  corpus,  the  body,  is  ruled  by  the  head  {corpus, 
then,  is  the  equivalent  of  nomen  commune) . 

Further,  nomina  appellativa  have  many  species,  etc. :  ^ 
(-•^■^-^  Qualitas  nominum  non  bipertita,  ut  quidem  rentur, 
sed  multipertita;  variis  siquidem  et  multis  consistit  specie- 
bus,  nonnulli  tamen  de  propriis  et  appellativis  nominibus 
quaestiones  obtendere  constant,  quasi  propriumsit  aliquod 
nomen  latinum.  omnia  namque  nomina  latina,  imm©  omnia 
fona  ita  invicern  conexa  sunt,  ut  quodque  sicut  alteri  heret 
ita  ab  altero  appelletur.  propria  ergo  nomina  non  secun- 
dum simplicem  sonum  sonanda  sunt,  sed  secundum  subti- 
liorem  quandam  interpretationem.  proprietas  quippe  duas 
res  significat  aut  specialitatem  aut  propriorem  ordinem: 
proprii  enim  recte  dicuntur  qui  in  primordio  ciuitatum  ho- 
nore  vel  dignitate  vel  censu  scribuntur,    unde  et  Cicero  de 


'  See  Isaac  Taylor,  The  Alphabet,  1883,  Vol.  I.  p.  174:  'Resh' 
clearly  means  the  head,  and  the  Hieratic  form  sufficiently  suggests 
the  oval  of  the    head,    supported  by  the  neck. ' 

-  The  remainder  of  our  author's  discussion  is  concerned  with  a 
miscellaneous  assortment  of  types,  rnany  of  which,  as  we  saw  above, 
are  regulaily  associated  with  the  topic  of   api)ellativa. 


[20] 

lustino  quodam  Romano  scribens  ita  infiuit  lustinus  autem 
proprius  omnium  sese  obdedit  hoc  est  primus  omnium,  pro- 
pria ergo  nomina  primaria  dicenda  sunt  ut  Roma  Carthago. 
communia  autem  inferioris  ordinis  sunt  ut  civitas.  de  re 
autem  et  corpore  multi  hessitant.  res  hebrea  litera  est  quae 
interpretatur  caput,  res  ergo  hoc  est  quod  et  primarium  no- 
men,  sicut  ergo  a  primario  quolibet  ducatur  exercitus  infe- 
rior, ita  et  capite  corpus  omne  regitur.  appellativa  autem 
nomina  multifidas  species  habent,  etc. ' 

The  gist  of  Virgilius'  argument,  such  as  it  is,  seems  to 
be  about  as  follows: 

The  traditional  two-fold  division  into  propria  and  appe- 
llativa ('ut  quidam  rentur'  includes,  as  we  have  seen,  all 
the  Grammatici  Latini)  must  be  rejected.  This  follows  from 
the  fact  that  proprius  in  its  ordinary  traditional  sense 
(again  'nonnulli  constant'  includes  all  the  Grammatici  La- 
tini) cannot  be  applied  to  nouns  of  any  sort.  No  Latin  noun 
can  be  inherently  sole  and  singular.  On  the  contrary,  they 
are  all  so  interdependent  that  'quoque  ab  altero  appelletur. ' 
The  true  meaning  of  proprius  in  this  connection,  as  of 
other  technical  terms  used  by  the  great  scholars  of  old,  is, 
of  course,  hidden  from  the  ordinary  eye.  In  this  case  the 
deeper  meaning  of  proprius  is  primus,  primarium,  i.  e. , 
'foremost'.  This  is  shown  by  'Cicero's'  proprius  omnium 
in  the  sense  of  'the  first,  the  foremost,  man  of  all. '  Nomina 
propria,  therefore,  are,  properly  speaking,  nomina  prima- 
ria, the  master-nouns,  the  leaders  and  lords  in  the  world 
of  nomina.  It  follows,  then,  that  nomina  communia  are 
of  the  lower  orders,  they  are  nouns  of  the  common  herd. 

It  is  unnecessary  to  say  that  despite  the  quotation  from 
some  contemporary  'Cicero',  this  'deeper'  meaning  of  pro- 
prius has  no  warrant  in  genuine  Latin  usage.  Nor  can  we 
point  with  certainty  to  the  source  from  which  this  meaning 
was  derived.  We  may  assume,  however,  that  Virgilius  and 
his  teachers  were  well  aware  of  the  fact  that  nomen  pro- 
prium  was  a  translation  of  Kvpiov  ovojia.  It  may  be,  therefore, 
that  the  theory  of  proprius  here  elaborated  was  derived 


[21] 

ultimately  from  the  more  common  meaning  of  Kvpios  —  lord 
or  master  —  especially  frequent  and  familiar  since  Chris- 
tian times  in  the  substantive  use  6  Kvpios,  the  Master  par 
excellence,  the  Lord  of  the  world.  The  'Ciceronian'  ex- 
ample quoted  by  Virgilius  was  doubtless  itself  inspired  by 
the  same  theory,  and  as  such  is  probably  a  good  illustration 
of  some  one  of  the  'twelve  kinds  of  Latinity'  to  which  our 
author  alludes  in  88,22,  Having  once  set  up  the  theory 
that  propria  nomina  were  primaria,  it  followed  of  course 
that  all  others  were  of  lower  rank;  in  other  words,  nomina 
communia  are  not  'common'  because  communiter  dicta, 
but  'common'  because  they  belong  to  the  common  herd.  It 
may  be  remarked  in  passing  that  the  reference  here  to  no- 
mina communia  implies  that  the  use  of  nomen  commune  in 
the  sense  of  nomen  appellativum  (from  which  our  'common' 
noun  was  derived)  was  already  familiar  to  scholars.  With 
the  exception,  however,  of  Serg.  Explanat.  in  Donat.  (K. 
IV  490,  15),  proprium  est  quod  unius  est,  commune  quod 
multorum  est  —  but  again  a  few  lines  below,  appellativum 
est  quod  multorum  est  (cf.  Probus,  K.  IV  119,  26)— the 
word  is  never  so  used  by  the  Grammatici  Latini.  In  Pris- 
cian  (K.  II 156,  10  and  III  472,  20)  nomina  communia  are 
nouns  having  a  'common'  gender. 

Having  disposed  of  nomina  propria  and  communia,  Vir- 
gilius takes  up  the  matter  of  'abstracts'  and  'concretes' ; 
for  this  is  what  is  meant  by  the  discussion  at  this  point  of 
res  and  corpus.  It  is  also  practically  certain  that  the  ulti- 
mate source  of  the  discussion  was  Donatus,  The  Gram- 
matici Latini  divide  appellativa  into  corporalia  ( 'concre- 
tes'), and  incorporalia  ('abstracts').  Donatus  alone  in- 
cludes all  nouns  in  this  division,  and  designates  abstracts 
by  res,  concretes  by  corpus  (K.  IV  373,1),  nomen  est  pars 
orationis  cum  casu  corpus  aut  rem  proprie  communiterve 
significans.  His  model  v/as  evidently  Dionysius  Thrax 
(Grammatici  Graeci,  P,  ed.     Uhlig,  Leipzig,  1883,  p.  24, 

ovojxa  €<rTi  fi.cpo$  \6yov  irTwriKOv,  ercip.a  f\  Trpd-y^a  <rT]|xaivov    .  .  .  koivws  t€  Kal 

i8£ft)s  \€7cii£vov;  cf.  Uhlig's  note  ad  Ice.  and  Apollonius  Dysco- 
lus,  id.  ir^  ,  p.  38. 


[22] 

Res,  however,  like  proprius,  has  a  hidden  meaning.  Res 
in  this  difinition  is  not  the  ordinary  res.  It  is  the  Hebrew 
letter  resh,  and  therefore  means  the  'head'.  Res-nouns  are, 
therefore,  the  same  as  nomina  primaria,  and  as  the  body 
is  subject  to  the  head,  corpus-nouns  are  the  same  as  no- 
mina communia.  Finally  Virgilius  divides  appellativa  into 
a  number  of  species,  which  need  not  concern  us  here. 

To  resume  briefly,  it  would  appear  that  according  to 
Virgilius  nouns  are  divided  into  primaria  (patricians)  and 
communia  (plebeians).  Then  there  are  appellativa  (i.  e., 
common  nouns  in  the  traditional  sense?).  These  are  di- 
vided into  many  species.  Of  course,  the  division  is  illogical 
and  futile,  but  it  is  doubtless  a  fair  sample  of  the  methods 
and  results  of  scholastic  discussion  in  Virgilius'  time. 

Virgilius  follows  the  traditional  treatment  in  making  no- 
men  include  both  noun  and  adjective.  However,  he  implies 
a  distinction: ^29, 16)  omnia  dirivativa  nomina adiecta  semper 
sunt;<^^-=^^  at  omnis  nomen  est  adiectivum.  ^  Quintilian  (K. 
I  4,20)  says  that  some  of  the  Greeks  counted  the  adjective 
as  a  separate  part  of  speech.  Priscian  (K.H  83,18)  in  his 
treatment  of  comparatio,  calls  words  which  are 
subject  to  comparison  'nomina  adiectiva';  Derivantur  igi- 
tur  comparativa  a  nominibus  adiectivis.  And  at  844  he 
says:  itaque  adectivaiure  sunt  appellata,  quae  illis  nomini- 
bus, quae  substantiam  demonstrant,  adiciuntur.  Virgilius 
in  his  remarks  on  comparison,  where  one  would  expect  a 
classification  of  the  words  subject  to  comparison,  does  not 
mention  nomina  adiectiva.  Donatus  calls  such  words  as 
magnus  fortis  'epitheta',  and  translates,  'id  est  adiectiva'. 
For  other  references  to  'adiectiva',  see  Serviuson  Donatus 
(K.  IV  430,  13),  Pompeius  (K.  V  147,  13),  Dositheus  (K. 
VII  398.  4). 


'  At  29,15  he  says  that  all  derivatives   are  adiecta:   sciendum    quod 
omnia  dirivativa  nomina  adiecta  semper  sunt. 


[23] 
Nomen,  Comparatio^ 

To  Virgilius  the  positive  with  the  genitive  —  although 
this  is  a  solecism  —  may  have  the  force  of  the  superlative: 
(29. 19)  possitivus  gradus  cum  genitivo  servit,  licet  ex 
sollicismo,  tam3n  suparlativi  facit  opus  ut  sapiens  sa- 
pientum,  quasi  hoc  diceret  sapientissimus  sapientum.  And 
so  may  the  illogical  but  old-fashioned  comparative  with  the 
genitive :^2^-  ^^^  nonnumquam  etiam  conparativus  gradus  cum 
genitivo  cassui  adheserit,  superlativi  opus  facit  et  hoc  non 
rationis  sed  vetustatis  est,  dicis  enim  maior  omnium,  acsi 
dixisses  maximus.  ^ 

The  superlative  (instead  of  the  comparative)  ^  with  the 
ablative  plural  is  a  'barbarism' :^^'^'2>  sed  hoc  barbaricum  est 
Done  dicente  tu  es  omnibus  fortissimus  regibus,  hoc  dicit 
fortior  omnibus.  And  so  is  the  use  of  the  positive  instead 
of  the  comparative:  ^^°' ^'^^  suo  magnus  doctore  for  maior; 
rationabilis  omnibus  for  rationabilior.  ^  Still,  this  barba- 
rism may  be  defended  from  the  usage  of  many  scholarly 
people :^^°-  ^^^  sed  haec  licet  indubitatam  nobis  autoritatem 
non  exhibeant,  tamen  quia  a  plerisque  gnarissimis  viris 
ussurpata  sunt,  apertam   diffissionem  inferre  non   debent. 

Virgilius  states^^^'*^  that  his  contemporaries  often  debat- 
ed the  important  question,  whether  a  comparative  might 
be  followed  by  either  the  ablative  singular  or  the  ablative 
plural.  On  the  high  authority  of  'Aeneas',  he  decides  the 
question  in  the  affirmative:  ^^"-^"^  ego  Aeneam,  quem  falli 
in  nulla  erat  possibile  ratione,   sequens  confidenter  assero. 


'  See  Jeep,  p.  155. 

-  Cf.  Plaut.  Capt.  825,  regum  rex  regalior;  Enn.  Trag.  41  R,  optu- 
marum  multo  mulier  melior  mulierum;  Aug.  De.  Spir.  et  An.,  66,  om- 
nium miseriarum  miserius. 

'  In  Gregory  of  Tours  the  comparative  is  often  used  for  the  super- 
lative; see  Bonnet,  p.  452. 

^  A  Hebraism.     See  Schmalz,  Lat.  Styl.  1910,  p.  547  and  ref. 


[24] 

quod  conparativus  gradus  utriusque  numeri  cassui  ablativo 
rectissime  serviat.  ^ 

Such  expressions  as  maior  maximo  are  incongruous,  be- 
cause they  subordinate  the  superlative  to  the  comparative: 
(30,22)  conparativus  gradus  superlativo  incongruentissime 
praeponitur  ut  maior  maa;imo;  superlativus  quippe  omnibus 
superequitat.  ^  Certain  positives,  because  of  their  meaning, 
may  be  used  instead  of  a  superlative:  (31,6)  dicimus  enim 
praecipuus  omnium,  egregius  patrum,  cernuus  regum.  ^ 

At  11,4  we  have  the  superlative  magnissimo;  at  127,  15 
we  are  told  that  some  people  use  the  comparative  plurio- 
res:  sum  pluriores  a  quibusdam  scribantur;  at  174,16  we 
have  the  comparative  proximiorem.  "* 

Nomen,  Genus  ^ 

Virgilius  recognizes  four  genders,  masculine,  feminine, 
neuter,  common:  (31, 8)  quadriforma  genera  sunt  sicut  omni- 
bus patet  legentibus.  But  under  the  name  'common'  he 
includes  what  some  grammarians^  had  counted  as  a  fifth 


'  Cf.  Donati  Ars  Gram.  IV  375,  4  K,  conparativus  gradus  ablativo 
casui  adiungitur  utriusque  numeri.  So,  also,  Charisii  Inst.  Gram.  I 
115,  4  K;  Diomedis  Ars.  Gram,  8  3jJ5,  9  K;  Prisciani  Inst.  II  94,  10  K; 
Consentii  Ars,  V  342,  19  K;  Dosithei  Ars    Gram.  VII  401,  4  K. 

-  Cf.  Donat.  Ars  Gram.,  IV  374,  27  K,  saepe  autem  conparativus 
gradus  praeponitur  superlativo,  ut  stuitior  stultissimo  et  maior  maximo; 
Diomedis  Ars  Gram.  I  325,  1  K;  Consentii  Ars,  V  342,  27  K;  i*ompei 
Comm.  V  155,  8  K.  Plautus,  Amph.  907,  has  stuitior  stultissimo; 
Lactantius,  Inst.  5,15,9,  inferior  infimis;  Hieronymus,  30,  160  M, 
minor  minimo;  Augustinus,  37,  1885  M,  excellentissimo  excellentior. 

■'  Cf.  Plaut.  Trin.  1115,  hie  homost  omnium  hominum.  praecipuos, 
and  Vii-gilius  himself  (42,11)  cum  verbum  omnium  partium  egregium  sit. 

*  Ma;jnissimus  is  cited  from  the  Historia  de  preliis,  1,2;  1,47;  2,8; 
3,17  (Neue,  II  207) ;  pluriores,  from  Victor  Vitensis,  3,32,  pluriora, 
from  Fulgent.  Myth.  1  praef.  5,16  and  Itala,  loann.  7,31  (Neue,  II 
208) ;  proximior  occurs  in  Seneca,  Ep.  108,  16,  and  often  later  (Neue, 
II  233). 

5  See  Jeep,  p.  127. 

•*  See  Dionysius  Thrax,  Gram.  Graeci,  I',  p.  25,    with  Uhlig's   note. 


[25] 

gender,  'genus  ^  omne' :  (31,14)  commune  autem  genus'du- 
plex  est,  etc.  He  makes  it  cover  not  only  substantives  which 
have  but  one  form  for  two  genders,  but  also  words  which 
have  the  same  form  for  all  genders  alike:  (32,11)  nomina 
autem,  quae  omnibus  generibus  aptantur,  non  communia 
sed  omnigena  dici  debent  ut  felix  velox  verax  amens  dives 
prudens. 

As  for  nouns  of  common  gender,  some  are  masculine  and 
feminine:  (31,15)  etenim  masculino  genereet  femino  com- 
munia sunt  ut  sacerdos  dies  finis  renis  lacus;  ^  some  are 
masculine  and  neuter:  (32,4)  communia  etiam  masculino 
et  neutro  inveniuntur  ut  fidgor  murmor  frigus  buxus;^ 
some  are  feminine  and  neuter:  (32,5)  sunt  et  feminino  et 
neutro  communia  ut  tellus  holus. 

Names  of  animals  and  birds  can  have  no  special  gender 
until  one  sees  what  is  the  sex  of  the  animal:  (32,6)  omnis 
autem  animalisaut  avis  nomen  proprium  genus  habere  non 
potest,  antequam  discernatur  cuius  sit  generis  "*  exceptis 
dumtaxat  hiis,  quibus  propria  in  utroque  genere  nomina 
possita  sunt  ut  taurus  et  vacca,  bos  bovis,  aries  et  ovis. 

At  110,11  Virgilius  mentions  a  simple  rule  —  already 
obsolete  but  not  entirely  inadmissible  —  that  names  of 
males  are  masculine,  names  of  females  are  feminine,  names 
of  'material  things'  are  neuter:  quidam  simpliciter  dixerunt, 


1  So  Probiis,  K.  IV  52,5;  Donatus,  K.  IV  375,13;  Servius,  Comm.  in 
Donat.,K.  IV  408,7.  Cf.  Apoll.  Dyscolus,  Gramm.  Graeci,  11-',  Leipzig, 
1910,  p.  59. 

-  Lacus  acus  domus,  when  masculine,  belong  to  the  second  declension, 
when  feminine,  to  the  fourth  (31,17f.).  Other  nouns  of  common  gen- 
der have  different  forms  of  the  nominative  in  the  same  declension: 
(32,2)  lapes  pulves  cines  masculina  sunt,  lapis  pulvis  cinis  feminina 
sunt,  sed  declinatio  eadem  est. 

•■'  Donatus  (K.  V  375,34)  makes  buxus  feminine  and  neuter:  sunt 
incerti  generis  inter  femininum  et  neutrum,  ut  buxus,  pirus,  prunus, 
malus.     So  Consentius  (K.  V  345,26). 

*  Cf.  Servii  Comm.  in  Donat.,  K.  IV  408,9,  nam  inter  commune  et 
epicoenon  hoc  interest,  quod  commune  est,  ubi  visu  secernimus  sexum, 
ut  canis;  epicoenon  ent  e  contrario  ubi  visu  non  secernimus  sexum,  ut 
piscis;  Explanat.  in  Donat.  id.  494,4;  Pompeius,    (K.  V  161,26). 


[26] 

quod  masculinum  hoc  esse  debuit,  quod  secundum  habitu- 
dinem  corporis  ostenderetur  et  ita  f emininum  ut  vir  et  mu- 
lier,  taui'us  et  vacca,  aries  et  ovis,  canis  et  cata  et  cetera 
animalia.  omnes  autem  res  materiales  ut  lapides  et  arbo- 
res  et  siqua  sunt  similia,  neutralia  dici  debere  censuerunt. 
inde  dicebant  hie  vir  et  haec  mulier  et  hoc  lapis  et  hoc  ar- 
bor et  hoc  cera  et  hoc  panis  et  hoc  domus  et  hoc  manus.  mo- 
neo  itaque  te,  o  frater  carissime,  ut  quamuis  non  hac  nunc 
consuetudine  scribendi  utamur,  tamen  quia  hoc  aput  vete- 
res  pro  recto  habeatur,  siquid  forte  huiusmodi  scriptum 
repperieris  licet  non  ad  indubitatam  auctoritatem  refferen- 
dum  putes,  tamen  quod  a  veteribus  usurpatum  est,  repre- 
hendere  omnino  non  debes. 

In  his  own  usage  the  following  peculiarities  may  be 
noted: 

Articulum,  n. :  (46,24)  articulum  est  hoc  quod  non  pro 
nomine  sed  cum  ipso  nomine  flectitur  ut  hie  pater. 

Moda,  f.  (cf.  Fr.  la  mode):  (4,2)  unde et  conparationum 
gradus  hac  moda  ponimus. 

Poema,  f. :  (17,24)  poema  sui  varietate  contenta  angusta 
atque  obscura  est,  etc. 

For  several  words  he  gives  two  nominative  forms,  usual- 
ly with  a  difference  of  meaning:  caelus,  caelum  (120,6); 
iocus,  iocum,  locus,  locum.  (41,15) ;  sibilus,  sibilum,  tarta- 
rus,  tartarum  (120,20);  vesper  (n.),  vespera  (112,16.) 

NUMERUS' 

Virgilius  admits  three  numbers  —  singular,  plural,  com- 
mon (32,14):  De  numeris  autem  hoc  tan  turn  dicendum  est, 
quod  sequestrata  singularitate  et  pluralitate  manifesta 
multa  communia  utrique  numero  inveniuntur  ut  sepes  nubes 
dies  clades  fames  sedes  vultus  tribus  gresus,  et  cetera.  Do- 
atus  (K.  IV  355,  18),  Servius  (K.  IV  468,  17),  Sergius  (K. 


1  See  Jeep.    p.  132. 


[27] 

IV  494,  31)  Charisius  (K.  I  18, 1),  Diomedes  (K.  I  301,  20), 
Priscian  (K.  II  172,  2),  Dositheus  (K.  VII 392,  4)  recognize 
only  two.  Probus  (K.  IV  74,  22),  Cledonius  (K.  V  10,  19), 
Pompeius  (K.  V  165,  20)  admit  also  a  common  number. 
Almost  all  the  grammarians  say  that  duo  and  ambo  are 
dual  in  Greek,  but  add  that  Latin  has  no  dual.  Of  the 
words  cited  above  by  Virgilius  as  common  number,  sepes 
clades  fames  sedes  point  to  a  confusion  of  quantity  in  the 
final  syllable.  Compare  his  discussion  of  the  i  and  ii  gen- 
itive (113,24  f.  ).  He  says  that  terra  is  plural  in  sense  (32, 
18) :  at  terra,  in  qua  hominum  genus  est,  turba  ac  tribus 
popidus  plebs  contio,  licet  singularem  numerum  praeferunt, 
pluralia  tamen  manifestantur  ex  sensu.  The  grammarians 
speak  of  no  such  use  of  terra. 

Nomen,   Figura  ^ 

Virgilius  gives  twofigurae,  simplex  and  composita  (33,1). 
So,  also,  Donatus  (K.  IV  355,  20),  Probus  (K.  IV  53,  19), 
Servius  (K.  IV  408,  20),  Sergius  (414,  34),    Cledonius  (K. 

V  11,  10),  Pompeius  (K.  V  168,  1),  Consentius  (K.  V  449, 
21).  Priscian  (K.  II  197,  10)  gives  three  —  simplex,  com- 
posita, decomposita.  Compounds  are  formed  by  'modi  in- 
tegri'  or  'modi  corrupti'.  These  modi  are  explained  by 
Donatus  (K.  IV  355,  21):  Quibus  modis  nomina componun- 
tur?  Quattuor:  ex  duobus  integris,  ut  suburbanus;  ex 
duobus  corruptis,  ut  efficax  municeps;  ex  integro  et  cor- 
rupt©, ut  insulsus;  ex  corrupto  et  intergo,  ut  nugigerulus. 
Pompeius  (K.  V  169,  7)  makes  the  meaning  even  clearer 
than  Donatus:  nosti  enim  quoniam  aut  utraque  parte  con- 
ponitur  integrum  aut  corruptum,  aut  prima  parte  integra 
et  posteriore  corrupta,  aut  parte  posteriore  integra  et  priore 
corrupta.  This  rule  would  mean  that  compounds  are  made 
(1)  by  putting  two  words  together  without  any  change  in 


1  See  Jeep.  p.  131. 


[28] 

either,  as  sub  and  urbanus;  (2)  when  both  change,  as  ex 
and  facie,  efRcio;  (3)  when  the  first  word  in  the  compound 
is  unchanged,  the  second  changed,  as  in  salsus  insulsus; 
(4)  when  the  first  word  is  changed,  the  second  unchanged, 
as  nugae  gerulus  nugigerulus.  The  rule  given  by  Donatus 
and  Pompeius  is  the  same  in  substance  as  that  given  by 
the  other  grammarians;  see  Charisius  (K.  I  153,  22),  Dio- 
medes  (K.  I  301,  25),  Priscian  (K.  II  178,  16). 

Virgihus  knew  the  terms  modi  integri  and  ynodi  corrup- 
ti.  At  33,  6  he  says:  conpossitio  autem  nominum  per  mo- 
dos  fit,  qui  modi  aut  integri  aut  corrupti  sunt.  He  seems 
to  know  also  that  the  'modi  corrupti'  involved  an  abridge- 
ment or  change  of  the  two  component  parts,  and  vice- 
versa:  (33,8)  corruptis  autem  integritas  non  est  quaerenda 
sicut  nee  integris  adimenda,  quia  enim  corrupti  dicuntur, 
non  quod  integri  ante  fuerint,  sed  quia  soli  latine  dici  non 
queunt.  The  grammarians  cited  above  are  all  agreed  upon 
four  modi,  and  give  examples  to  illustrate  what  they  mean. 
Virgilius  gives  neither  a  definite  number  of  modi,  nor  does 
he  outline  the  various  combinations  with  examples  of  each. 
His  teacher  Aeneas  claimed  that  the  modi  in  these  com- 
pounds could  not  contain  more  than  two  or  three  letters 
each:  (33,10)  legimus  dicente  Aenea,  quia  hiimodi  conpos- 
sitionum  duarum  vel  trium  literarum  numerum  non  exce- 
dant.  Virgilius  cites  integer  and  insulsus  ^  as  examples  of 
a  combination  of  three  modi  (33,12):  dicimus  enim  tribus 
modis  integer  novissimo  corrupto,  insulsus  medio  corrupt©. 
He  seems  to  interpret  integer  as  a  compound  of  in  and  te 
(pronoun),  the  modi  integri,  ger(gero),  the  modus  corrup- 
tus.  Probus  (K.  IV  55,  22)  gives  viator  as  an  example  of 
the  two  modi  integri  and  one  modus  corruptus:  via  noun 
in  the  ablative  case,  a  a  preposition,  tor  vi-a-tor. 

Virgilius  holds  that  of  the  monosyllabic  nomina  only  ad- 


1  Many  of  his  contemporaries  regarded  these  as  words  of   two  modi 
(33,14). 


[29] 

jectives  can  be  compounded  (33,18):  monosyllaba  autem 
nomina  conponi  non  posKunt  praeter  adiecta  ut  ers  iners, 
sons  insons.  For  this  statement  I  have  found  no  traditional 
authority. 

Nomen,  Casits''- 

Virgilius  does  not  concern  himself  with  the  derivation 
and  meaning  of  casus^  —  a  matter  which  caused  much 
discussion  among  the  grammarians  when  the  term  was 
applied  to  the  nominative  and  vocative.  ^ 

He  gives  the  number  of  cases  as  six  —  corresponding  to 
the  various  activities  of  men:  (35,12)  Casus  sunt  sex: 
quare?  quia  sex  negotia  homines  agunt:  nominant  generant 
dant  agunt  vocant  auferunt.  unde  hii  quoque  casus  banc 
summan  accipiunt.  He  explains  that  accusativus  means 
activus —  because  acciisare  means  afifere:  (36,1)  Cicero 
etenim  sic  dicit  accusate  quod  rectum  est,  hoc  est  agite. 
Terrentius  quoque  quare  non  accusatis  paenitudinem?  Gel- 
bidius  etiam  de  Ambrosio  omnia  inquit  lands  accusavit 
digna  pro  agebat  unde  intellegitur  quod  accusativus  cas- 
sus  ab  hoc  vocatur,  quia  verbo  heret  activo.  et  verius  dicam: 
accusativus  ipse  activus  erit.  But  he  distinguishes  the 
ablative  proper  from  the  instrumental  and  other  uses  of  the 
same  case  —  the  'septimus  casus'.  *     The  ablative  takes  a 


1  See  Jeep,  p.  134. 

2  This,  however,  was  evidently  due  to  epitomizing.  See  the  excerpt 
from  some  more  complete  text  of  Virgilius,  in  Collignon,  Rev.  d. 
Philologie,  1883,  p.  20. 

•*  See  Charisius  (K.  I  154,6),  Priscian  (K.  II  183,20;185,12)  Donatus 
(K.  IV  377,15),  Servius  (K.  IV  433,12),  Cledonius  (K.  V  44,6),  Pom- 
peius  V  170,32), 

^  Varro  called  the  ablative  'sextus casus':  hunctamen  Varro  sextum, 
interdum  Latinum  appellat  (Diomedes  K.  I  302,6;  so,  also,  Consentius, 
K.  V  351,9).  Quintilian  is  disposed  to  divide  it  into  two,  making  the 
instrumental  a  'septimus  casus':  (I  4,26)  quaerat  etiam,  sitne. .  .  .apud 
nos  quoque  septimi.  nam  cum  dico  'hasta  percussi',  non  utor  ablativi 
natura,  nee  si  idem  Graece  dicam,  dativi.   Charisius  (K.  I  154,11)  and 


[SO] 

preposition  the  'septimus  casus'  does  not:  (36,8)  nostamen 
hoc  dicimus,  quod  septimus  cassus  ablativo  hoc  tantum 
distat,  quod  ablativus  praepossitionem  recipiat,  septimus 
autem  cassus  certis  cassibus  certisque  verbis  hereat.  dicis 
enim  ablativo  cassu  ab  hac  regione  venerunt  septimo  autem 
hac  regione  praeditisunt  sicut  et  laude  digni  et  o.rte  mo,cti. 
And  at  162,2  ff.  he  reports  that  Galbungus  and  Aeneas 
called  the  ablative  absolute  'octavus  casus'.  ^ 

In  his  own  use  of  cases  —  if  we  may  trust  the  spelling 
of  the  manuscripts  —  there  are  some  irregularities.  At 
115,20  we  have  the  accusative  instead  of  the  nominative: 
sequentem  syilabam  producta  est  {produces,  Stangl,  p.  73). 
So  at  130,20,  est  et  aliam  causam  {alia  causa,  Stangl.  p.  79) ; 

at  133,8,  maiorem  in   verbo silvam inveniuntur;   at 

157,2,  quomodo  sententiam  intellegetur?  At  9,10  the  geni- 
tive is  used  instead  of  the  nominative:  literarum  ob  hoc 
forciosae  sunt.  At  167,22  he  has  quaes tio  solutionis  satis 
indiga;at  124,13,  quaestio  solutionem  satis  indiga. 

Nomen,    Declaratio  ^ 

Virgilius  says  nothing  about  the  number  of  declensions, 
and  gives  no  examples  of  the  various  types.  Donatus  (K. 
IV  355,  28)  declines  magister,  musa,  scamnum,  sacerdos, 
and  felix;  but  does  not  mention  the  number  of  types.  Ser- 
vius  (K.  IV  408,  36)  says  that  there  are   five  classes,    and 


Donatus  (K.  IV  377,20)  say  that  some  grammarians  count  a  seventh 
case;  Diomedes  (K.  I  317,25),  Pompeius  (K.  V  171,21)  and  Consen- 
tius  oK.  V  351,14)  accept  it.  Priscian  (K.  II  190,3)  rejects  it,  on  the 
ground  that  the  presence  or  absence  of  a  preposition  can  make  no 
difference  in  the  case.     See  Jeep,  1.  c,  p,  136. 

'  See  Jeep,  p.  138.  I  do  not  find  this  definition  of  the  ablative  ab- 
solute elsewhere.  Servius  (K.  IV  433,23),  Cledonius  (K.  V  12,5  and 
44,17)  and  Pompeius  (K.  V  183,22),  apply  octavus  casus  to  the  local 
dative  with  verbs  of  motion,  and  illustrate  it  by  Vergil's  'it  clamor 
caelo'.  Consentius  (K.  V  351,17)  reports  that  some  consider  the  ab- 
lative in  such  examples  as  dignus  munere  as  the  octavus  casus. 

2  See  Jeep,  160. 


[31] 

that  this  was  doubtless  stated  in  Donatus  before  his  trea- 
tise was  abridged  ('per  compendium').  Pompeius  (K.  IV 
3,4),  Sergius  (K.  IV  496,  27),  Priscian  (K.  Ill  443,  3)  rec- 
ognize five  declensions.  ^  Charisius  (K.  I  18,7)  makes  only 
four;  Diomedes  (K.  I  303,  12)  makes  seven.  ^  Virgilius' 
discussion  of  the  genitive  case  may  show  the  number  of 
declensions  he  would  make.  He  discusses  (1)  genitive  in 
i  (113,25),  (2),  a3  (114,2),  (3)  is  and  (4)  us  (114,4).  The 
use  of  the  ending  in  the  genitive  case  singular  as  a  basis 
for  determining  declension  is  nowhere  mentioned  in  Virgi- 
lius. The  grammarians  who  make  the  genitive  ending  the 
test  are  Probus  (K.  IV  3,4),  Sergius  (K.  IV  496,27),  Cha- 
risius (K.  I  18,7  and  537,15),  Diomedes  (K.  1303,12),  Pris- 
cian (K.  II  194,8;  111443,5).  Pompeius  (K.  V  188,20) 
makes  the  ablative  case  singular  the  foundation  for  all  the 
declensions:  et  bene  fecerunt  Romani  ab  ablativo  singulari 
sumere  regulas,  qua  ratione?  quoniam  iste  proprius  ipsorum 
est:  ablativum  enim  Graeci  non  habent,  sed  Romani.  Do- 
natus MK.  IV  356,31;  378,3)  also  used  the  ablative  case 
singular  to  determine  the  genitive,  dative,  and  ablative 
plural.  Virgilius  speaks  of  the  use  of  this  case  in  deter- 
mining the  ium  endings  of  the  genitive  plural  (117,3) :  cum 
ablativus  cassus  singularis  in  i  finit,  sic  ex  aliis  ergis  ge- 
netivus  in  ium  plurali  finiri  solet. 

At  38,4  Virgilius  says  that  all  monosyllables  have  a  sec- 
ond form  in  the  nominative  singular:  sciendum  sane,  quod 
omnis  monosyllabae  declinatio  duplici  nominative  utatur 
ut  plebs  plebis  et  nominativo  plebis,  ars  et  artis,  bos  et  bo- 
vis.  Cf.,  also,  111,4:  Sed  quia  de  nominativo  cassu  dicere 
disposuimus,  quaestio  nobis   ingeritur,    cur  uni  nomini  no- 


'  He  does  not  make  the  dies  type  a  separate  declension. 

-  He  distinguishes  between  i  and  ii  genitives,  also  between  genitives 
in  us  and  u. 

•'  See  also  Sergius  on  Donatus    (K.  IV  495,24),    and  Servius    (K.  IV 
408,28),  Consentius  (K.  V  359,10). 


[32] 

minativus  sing-ularis  cassus  repperiatiir  duplex,  cum 
per  omnes  cassus  una  eademque  sit  declinatio  ut  dici- 
mus  sepe  sepis  et  seps  sepis,  Cebes  Cebitis  et  Chehs  Ciiebitis, 
item  preces  precis,  prex  precis,  sedes  sedis  et  ses  sedis  et 
cetera. 

At  111,21  he  mentions  certain  nouns  which  have  two  or 
m-ore  'declensions'  throughout:  Sunt  tamen  quaedam  no- 
mina  quae  duas  per  omnia  declinationes  habere  noscuntur 
ut  laetitia  laetamen,  vocatio  vocamen,  praesagium  praesa- 
gimen,  fundamentum  fundam,en,  monimentum  monimen, 
calciamentum  calciaraen,  examentum  examen,  stramentum 
stramen,  firynamentum  firmamen,  species  specimen  et  ce- 
tera, immo  hoc  addimus  quod  tres  vel  quattuor  declina- 
tiones plerisque  nominibus  eveniant  sicut  est  laetitia,  lae- 
tities,  laetamen.  The  chief  purpose  of  such  doublets  is  to 
provide  for  metrical  convenience,  though  they  serve  also 
to  express  difference  of  meaning  or  application:  (111,10) 
hoc  maxime  propter  metrorum  necessitatem  pedumque 
mensurandorum  ac  temporum  positionem  accipitur.  hoc 
tamen  sciendum,  quod  quoties  dicatur  sepes,  lapidum  os- 
tendatur  materia,  cum  autem  scribatur  sops,  lignorum 
semper  erit,  etc. 

At  37,14  f.  he  gives  one  or  tvv^o  interesting  examples  of 
obsolete  m.odes  of  declension:  sunt  item  nomina,  quae  a 
veteribus  aliter  declinantur  et  nunc  velut  recentiore  in- 
staurata  peritia  aliter  flectuntur  ut  vis  vis  vi  vim  vis  vi  et 
pluraliter  vis  vium  vibus  vis  vis  vibus.  ^  at  nos  dicimus  virs 
viris  viri  virum  virs  viri  et  pluraliter  vires  et  cetera,  di- 
cebant  etiam  gelus  gelus  gelui  gelum  gelus  gelu,  ^  non  sic 
gehi  gelu  et  cetera. 


'  Vis,  nom.  pi.  and  ace.  pi.  is  occasional,  and  was  noted  by  Probus, 
(K.  IV  19,23  and  31,1);  Plotius  (K.  VI  4«2,11);  Priscian  (K.  11249,10). 
See  Neue,  I  744,  Lindsay,  Archiv,  X  443. 

-'  The  Grammatici  Latini  regularly  say  that  such  neuters  as  cornu, 
gelu  are  'monoptota'  or  'aptota'  in  the  singular:  they  are  cited  by  Neue, 
I  539-540.  Martianus  Capella,  III  293,  insists  on  a  genitive  singular  in 
-us. 


[33] 

At  36,14  f.  he  gives  some  examples  of  nouns  which  are 
defective  in  case.  Humi  has  no  genitive  singular  —  'for 
/m77?i Ms  dative'  (36,20).  Tenebra^  has  all  the  cases  ex- 
cept the  accusative  singular:  unde  et  nostri  solent  tenebras 
semper  activo  applicare  verbo  (37,9).  Viscere  and  verbere^ 
have  no  case  in  the  singular  except  the  ablative  (37,1). Z)i- 
m^me*  cannot  have  a  singular  (37,12)  —  though  divitia 
occurs  at  26,2:  qua  divitia  nomen  omnibus  partibus  latini- 
tatis  praelatum  sit. 

Virus  is  used  for  vir,  91,21:  Istrius  virus  Hispanus. 
Multimodis  is  accusative  plural,  134,27:  multimodis  ac  mul- 
tifarias  habet  sententias.  Both  bonus  and  bonis  are  reported 
for  the  nominative  singular,  'each  in  its  own  declension' :  (41, 
23)  uterque  in  sua  declinatione  repperitur  dicente  Lucano 
bones  viros  urbs  dedit  Sicilia  et  iterum  Serenus  sanctem 
deorum  cultorem  quis  non  laudabit.  item  con  eundem  per- 
fectem  in  cunctis  oportet  crescere  virum.  Opia  is  the  sin- 
gular of  opes:  (41,20)  sunt  cassus  extraordinariae  declina- 
tionis  ut  opia  opiae  et  pluraliter  opes  ;/acm  is  used  for  fa- 
des, 18,24:  in  sua  facia  praeferens;  plania  for  planities  or 
planitia,  24,15:  in  nobilitate  virtu  turn  etmititudinis  plania. 

Some  people  maintained  that  the  genitive  singular  of  the 


1  Diomedes  (K.  I  405,11) ;  Priscian  (K.  11167,5  and  377,4).  Arus. 
Mess.  (K.  VII  477,31)  quotes  Verg.  E.  8,92;  Sail.  Cat.  55,3;  Jug.  48,3. 
Kumi  is  called  a  genitive,  but  treated  with  all  other  locative  forms  as 
an  'adverbium  loci  in  loco',  Diomed.  I.e.  So  Priscian  (K.  Ill  67,5  and 
877,4)  treats  all  these  forms  as  'genetivus  casus  pro  adverbio  in  loco.' 

■-'  Apul.  M.,  .5,20,  has  tenebrae  (gen.);  Venant.  Fort.  10,17,36,  has 
tenebra  (abl.);  Script.  Hist.  Aug.  'Commod.'  16,2  has  tenebra  (nom.). 
The  singular  is  not  recognized  by  Charisius  (K.  I  33,23  and  549,32). 
Diomedes  (K.  I  328,5);  Probus  (K.  IV  196,27);  Phocas  (K.  V  428,11); 
See  Neue  I  7,2. 

•^  Cf.  Phocas,  V  428,28  K.  alia  ablativum  tan  turn  in  singular!  numero, 

ut ab  hoc  viscere.  Lucr.  has  viscus  (nom.),    1,837,    visceris    (gen.) 

5,903;  Celsus  has  also  the   dative  visceri    (Neue  I  172).    The   genitive 
verberis  occurs  in  Ovid,  Met.  14,821;  Lucan,  3,649. 

*  So  Charisius  (K.  I  33, 23 and 549, 32) ;  Diomedes  (K.  1328,5);  Phocas 
(K.  V  428,11).  Nonius  cites  divitiam  (475,26) :  aeternabilem  divitiam 
partissent.     See  Neue  I  633;  Ronsch,  Coll.  Phil,  p.  30. 


[34] 

second  declension  should  always  end  in  -ii:  (113,28)  licet 
nonnulli  aestiment  hunc  cassum  quotiescumque  in  -i  termi- 
natur,  debere  longum  fieri.  The  school  of  Galbungus  regu- 
larly wrote  docttts  doctii  (114,10).  Mitterius  said  that  one 
might  write  either  doctus  docti  or  doctius  doctii  ^  —  which- 
ever his  metre  required.  (114,12). 

Virgilius  says  (118,10)  that  the  old  rule  made  such  abla- 
tives as  radiis  copiis  long,  but  donis  verbis  etc.  short.  His 
own  rule  is,  that  all  ablatives  in  -is  are  long:  (118,16)  ce- 
terum  novis  scolis  supervenientibus  alia  sententia  super- 
venit.  dicunt  enim  nostri,  quod  omnis  dativus  et  ablativus 
cassus  pluralis  in  is  syllabam  terminatus  longus  semper 
natura  sit. 

At  46,11  he  gives  an  obsolete  declension  of  what  he  calls 
the  'pronouns'  duo  and  amho:^  a  veteribus  declinantur  dui 
duorum  duis  duos  a  duis,  sic  et  ambi,  rectius  autem  decli- 
nantur duo  duum  duobus  duos  a  duobus,  sic  et  ambo  ain- 
buum  ambobus. 

Pronomen  ^ 

Virgilius  makes  the  following  distinction  between  nomen 
and  pronomen:  the  pronomen  has  person,  the  nomen  has 
not;  the  nomen  has  comparison,  the  pronomen  has  not: 
(43,17)  inter  pronomen  autem  et  nomen  hoc  interest,  quod 
pronomen  conparatione  carens  personam  habeat  ut  ego  tu 
ille,  nomen  autem  persona  abiecta  conparationem  recipiat 
ut  carus  carior  carissimus.  This  is  the  distinction  regu- 
larly made  by  the  grammarians. 

His  definition  of  pronomen  is  not  the  conventional  one, 


'  Varro  and  Pliny  doubled  the  i  of  -ius  nominatives.  Luciliua  wrote 
a  single  i.  See  Charisius  (K.  I  78,6  and  79,1). 

-  Duo  is  nowhere  classed  as  a  pronoun,  ambo  is  generally  classed  as 
a  nomen,  but  some  grammarians  put  it  in  the  doubtful  list.  See  Do- 
natus  (K.  IV  381,9)  and  Pompeius  (K.  V  211,22  f.). 

^  See  Jeep,  p.  173. 


[35] 

but  it  comes  to  much  the  same  thing:  (43,8)  pronomen 
autem  est  pars  subministratoria  orationis,  quae  quidem 
absque  nominis  amminiculo  infirma  esse  videtur.  sed  no- 
men  illius  vel  maxime  eget  adiumento,  praesertim  cum  eius 
vicem  ipso  dumtaxat  nomine  ante  prolato  conplet  ac  reti- 
net  Flacco  scribente  ut  vidimus  ex  Hebreis  virum  elegau' 
tern,  et  mirati  eum  sumus  atque  conplexi,  non  enim  iterum 
dixit  virum  admirati.  Compare  Charisius  (K.  1157,24): 
Pronomen  est  pars  orationis  quae  posita  pro  nomine  minus 
quidem,  paene  idem  tamen  significat.  ^  Subministratoria  ^ 
is  Virgilius'  way  of  expressing  minus  quidem,  paene  idem 
significat. 

He  does  not  treat  the  pronomen  according  to  its  acciden- 
tia, as  he  did  the  nomen,  but  comments  only  on  particular 
forms.  To  judge  from  the  distinction  which  he  made  be- 
tween the  nomen  and  pronomen,  and  from  the  accidentia 
according  to  which  he  discussed  the  nomen,  he  recognized 
qualitas,  genu^,  numerus,  figura,  persona,  casus.  These  are 
precisely  the  accidentia  which  are  given  by  Donatus  (K. 
IV  357,3).=^ 

Qualitas  was  variously  classified  by  the  grammarians. 
Donatus  (K.  IV  379,26)  makes  two  divisions:  'pronomina 
finita',  'pronomina  infinita'.  Of  these,  'pronomina  finita' 
have  person;  'pronomina  infinita'  have  not.  Diomedes 
(K.  I  329,5)  adds  a  third  division,  'minus  quam  finita': 
finita  est  quae  notat  certum  numerum  et  gestum  dirigit  ad 
personam,  ut  ego.  infinita  est  quae  certam  non  recipit 
personam  sed  cuilibet  potest  aptari,  ut  quis  quae  quod, 
minus  quam  finita  est  quae  certis  et  incertis  personis  aptari 


'  This  is  the  conventional  definition.  Compare  Diomedes  (K.  I  329,1), 
Probus  (K.  IV  131,1),  Donatus  (K.  IV  357.1). 

-  This  term  is  not  found  elsewhere. 

'  The  grammarians  regularly  begin   with  a  list  of  the    accidentia  of 
the  pronomen,  and  then  discuss  them  in  that  order.     See    Probus    (K . 

IV  131,3),  Priscian  (K.II577,3),  Cledonius  (K.  V  14,13),   Pompeius  (K. 

V  200,10). 


[36] 

potest  ut  ipse.  Virgilius  must  have  followed  Donatus,  as 
we  may  infer  from  his  remarks  on  iste:  (125,1)  Est  prono- 
men,  de  quo  dubitatio  magna  habetur,  utrum  finitum  an 
infinitum  sit  ut  iste.  nonnulli  etenim  infinitum  esse  cum 
quadam  diffensionis  suae  auctoritate  hortantur  ut  ego  iste, 
tu  iste,  ille  iste.  ^  He  calls  ego  'finitum':  (121,13)  primum 
in  ordine  pronomen  finitum  est  ego. 

Diomedes  makes  ordo  one  of  the  accidentia  of  the  prono- 
men; and  so  speaks  of  'pronomina  praepositiva'  such  as 
quis  qimntus,  and  'pronomina  subiunctiva',  such  as  is  tan- 
tus.  2  Virgilius  cries  out  with  indignation  against  the  igno- 
rance displayed  in  the  use  of  these  two  classes  of  pronomi- 
na: (128,31)  Pro  dolor!  sane  et  omni  miseratione  dignum 
est,  quod  multi  haec  articula  secundum  ordinem  corruper- 
unt:  nam  quae  subiunctiva  esse  debuerunt,  praepositiva 
fecere:  et  econtrario  quae  praeponi  opportuerat,  inlegit^ime 
postponuntur  secundum  GalHenum  in  quadam  epistola 
scribentem:  sciat  hie  in  sese  vindicatum.  debuit  enim  di- 
cere  hie  sciat.  Rectium  quoque  prauissime  scribens  ita 
affatus  est:  is  erat  vir  valde  bonus  et  maxime  prudens. 
oportuit  eum,  si  cerebri  sui  compos  fuisset,  ita  conponere 
erat  is  valde  bonus  vir.  Here  Virgilius  evidently  applies 
praepositivus  and  subiunctivus  to  the  position  of  certain 
pronouns  (in  this  case  hie  and  is)  with  reference  to  the 
verb  —  a  meaning  which  the  grammarians  ^  did  not  give 
to  them. 


^  Iste  was  classed  as  minus  quam  finita  by  the  f^rammariana,  who 
made  a  three-fold  division  of  qualitas.  See  Servius  (K.  IV  410, 12), 
Diomedes  [K.  I  330,19],  Augustinus  [K.  V  507,21];    Donat.  IV  379,29. 

-  Then  follows  the  explanation:  [K.  I  329,21]  veluti  praepositiva, 
[ut]  quis  fecit?  subjunctiva  vel  quae  responsi  vim  habent,  iste  fecit; 
item  quantus  ille  est,  tantus  ille  est.  Cf.  Charisius  [K.  I  163,29],  Cle- 
donius  [K.  V  14,29]. 

3  Pompeius  [K.  V  205,17]  shows  clearly  what  is  meant;  sunt  prae- 
terea  aliqua  pronomina  quae  inchoant  elocutionem,  aliqua  quae  sub- 
nectunt  elocutionem,  inchoant  elocutionem  ista  quis:  subnectunt,  is 
puta  'quis  est  qui  fecit  iniuriam?  etc.  The  answer  cannot  be  'quis  est' 
but  'is  est'  [23]. 


[37] 

Virgilius  says  that  some  think  that  qualis  and  talis  are 
not  pronouns,  but  adjectives  (130,1)  —  because  they  are 
declined  like  adjectives  (4),  because  they  have  the  gender 
of  nomina,  and  because  adverbs  are  made  from  them(15). 
He  cites,  in  answer  to  these  reasons,  the  adverbs  meatim 
tuatim  suatim  nostratim  vestratim^  (18).  He  excludes 
plures,  which  some  thought  should  be  considered  a  pro- 
noun, because  it  can  be  compared  (17,17). 

He  discusses  (40,7  f. )  ullus,  unus,  duo,  ambo,  tres,  alter 
among  the  pronomina,  and  does  not  intimate  that  anyone 
classed  them  as  nomina.  Duo  and  tres  only  are  recognized 
as  nomina  by  the  grammarians.  ^  Unus,  ambo,  alter,  ullus 
are  among  the  list  of  doubtful  ones  given  by  Donatus:  (K. 
IV  381,9)  neuter  uter  unus  [omnis]  alter  ahus  ullus  ambo 
uterque  sunt  qui  nomina,  sunt  qui  pronomina  existiment, 
ideo  quod  articulis  in  declinatione  non  indigent.  Pompeius 
(K.  V  211,22  f. )  gives  the  same  list  as  Donatus,  but  ex- 
cludes them  from  the  pronomina  because  they  are  not 
found  in  the  list  of  twenty-one  given  by  Probus. 

Pronomen,    Declinatio 

1.  Ego,  tu  sibi,  m.eus,  tuus,  suus.  Virgilius' own  declen- 
sion of  all  these  forms  is  quite  classical,  but  he  mentions 
some  interesting  variants  which  v/ere  used  by  some  of  his 
contemporaries. 

The  com.plete  change  from  the  nominative  ego  to  the 
genitive  -mei  caused  the  grammarians  of  this  period  much 
difhculty:  (121,12)  (de  quo)  tam  multi  innumeras  ventila- 
bant  quaestiones.  Many  claimed  that  ego  was  indeclinable 
and  should  be  written  without  change  in  all  cases  and 
numbers:^    (121,18)  ut   adfirmarent   ego   inter   monoptota 


1  Neue  cites  examples   of  all  these   forms;  see   his  index   under  the 
words. 

2  See  the  indices  of  Keil's  Grammatici  Latini,    under  duo  and   tres. 
^  Virgilius  cites  examples  (122,18  ff.).  Zimmer,  op.  cit,  1075,  notes 


[38] 

debere  semper  adscribi,  ut  in  omni  numero  genere  et  cassu 
ego  singulariter  diceretur.  Others  would  reject  ego  alto- 
gether and  use  a  nominative  form  mius  to  match  the  ge- 
nitive met  (121,23).  For  mei  Virgilius  offers  the  variant 
m,is:^  (47,7)  legimus  flecti  mei  vel  mts.  He  explains  the 
usage  of  the  two  forms,  as  follows:  hoc  ita  intellegendum 
quia  mis  non  dicitur  nisi  de  ea  re,  quam  mihi  ab  aliquo  re- 
promisam  spero  eventuram,  mei  autem  de  eo  quod  ad 
praesens  possedeo. 

At  47, 11  he  mentions  some  shortened  forms  of  the  pos- 
sessive adjective  which  are  of  especial  interest  to  the 
student  of  the  Romance  languages:  suntet  alia  pronomina, 
quae  in  latinitate  ussitate  non  habentur  et  tamen  indubie 
recipiuntur  genere  masculino  ut  miis,  genitivus  mi,  dativus 
mo,  accusativus  mum,  vocativus  mi,  ablativus  mo  et  plu- 
raliter  mi  morum  mis  mos  o  mi  a  mis.  feminino  ma  mae 
mae  mam  o  ma  a  ma,  pluraliter  mae  marum  mis  mas  mae 
a  mis,  neutrum  mum,  pro  quo  in  ussu  habetur  meus,  sic 
erit  et  tus  pro  tuus.  These  are  precisely  the  forms  which 
must  have  existed  in  Vulgar  Latin  in  order  to  produce  the 
French  forms  mon,  ma,  ton,  ta,  son,  sa,  mes.  ^  They  are 
often  regarded  as  a  distinguishing  trait  of  Gallic  Latin, 
though  they  have  been  traced  in  Spain,  Portugal,  Italy, 
and  Sicily  as  well.  ^    C.  L  L.    V,  2007    (from  Opitergium) 


that  in  Old  Irish  and   Old  Cymric  there  was  only  one  form  in   the  sin- 
gular for  the  personal  pronoun.  See  Baebler,  Beitrage,  p.  65. 

1  Buecheler,  Lat.  Decl.,  75,  says  of  the  forms  mis  and  tis:  doch  sind 
diese  seit  Plautus  Zeit  verloren.  They  are  mentioned  by  the  gramma- 
rians, Donatus,  Charisius,  Probus,  Pompeius,  Servius,  Priscian  —  see 
Neue,  II  347-8  —  and  they  probably  survived  in  the  sermo  plebeius. 

^  See  Meyer-Liibke,  II,  p.  108;  Diez,  p.  470-472. 

•^  G.  Groeber  (Archiv,  I  58)  saw  in  the  mention  of  these  shortened 
forms  a  proof  that  Virgilius  was  a  Gaul;  P.  Geyer  (Archiv,  II  34) 
added  that  they  might  be  traced  in  other  Romance  languages  besides 
Provencal  and  French  —  but  not  in  Tuscan.  P.  de  Lagarde  pointed  to 
such  forms  as  patremo  signorto  ziso  in  Boccaccio,  Pucci,  and  Dante, 
and  signormo  in  Giordano  Bruno's  Candelaio;  and  added  that  similar 
forms  are  still  used  in  the  colloquial  speech  of  Naples  (Gottingische 
gelehrte  Anzeigen,  1889,  p.  129).     And  V.  Spampanato,  in  his  edition 


[39] 

has  so;  a  document  from  Southern  Gaul  of  the  year  716 
has  sa;  two  Italian  documents  of  the  years  737  and  744 
have  respectively  sis  and  sum  (sirvitium).  Virgilius,  how- 
ever, was  the  first  to  say  that  such  forms  were  actually 
used  in  colloquial  speech. 

At  124,10  he  mentions  the  forms  egoego  tutu:  hoc  tamen 
pronomen  conpossitiones  duas  recipit,  vel  cum  ipsum  ilium 
duplicatur  ut  egoego,  vel  cum  met  syllabam  recipiet  ut  ego- 
met:  sic  tutu,  tumet,  sese,  semet. 

nie,  ipse.  Virgilius  gives  some  variant  forms  in  a  list 
of  'pronomina  ignota':  (45,1)  nonnulla  enim  solo  nomina- 
tivo  flectuntur  ut  uspis  unde  uspiam;  quaedam  nominati- 
vum  et  genitivum  habent  ut  illus  illius,  illas  illae,  ilium, 
illi;  sic  ipsus  ipsas  ipsum ....  neutrum  ellum,  dativus  elli, 
accusativus  ellum,  vocativus  ellum,  ablativus  ello.  sed  plu- 
rali  carent  numero.^ 

Hie,  is.  Hii,  nominative  plural,  occurs  eight  times.  Hiis, 
dative  and  ablative,  is  more  common  than  his,  and  occurs 
twenty  times.  Hisdem  occurs  three  times:  4,9;  114,27;  115, 
29.  Heae,  feminine  plural,  occurs  once  (109,15). 

Hie  has  retained  its  classical  meaning,  and  is  now  used 
also  as  the  definite  article:  (46,24)   articulum  est  hoc  quod 


of  the  Candelaio  (Bari,  1909,  p.  180),  quotes  from  Varchi's  L'Ercolano 
(Florence,  ed.  1846,  p.  256)  to  show  that  such  forms  were  once  used  in 
Florence:  dicesi  'fratelmo',  in  vece  difratelmio:  'sirocchiama' o  'mog- 
liema',  in  luogo  di  sirocchia  mia  o  moglie  mia:  'fratelto'  e  'figliuolto', 
in  iscambio  di  fratel  tuo  e  figliuol  tuo:  'signormo'  per  signor  mio, 
'signorto',  signor  tuo,  e  'signorso',  che  disse  Dante,  cioe  signor  suo: 
'ziesa',  che  vale  sua  zia. 

1  For  the  nominative  in  -us  cf.  the  form  quoted  by  Varro  (L.  L.  VII, 
3,42):ollus  lecto  datus  est.  For  examples  of  the  neuter  ilium,  see 
Ronsch,  276.  The  genitive  illae  is  mentioned  by  Charisius  (158,19  K.). 
Illi  for  illius  is  cited  from  Cato  (Priscian,  228, 3K.).  Ellum  is  found  in 
Plautus  (Cure.  278  Uss.);  ellam  in  Terence  (Ad.  389).  It  should  be 
noted,  however,  that  Virgilius  cites  also  a  nominative,  a  dative,  and 
an  ablative  form.  The  whole  passage  45,1-17  may  be  compared  with 
Donatus,  IV  380,30  K:  Sunt  pronomina  quae  non  per  omnes  casus  de- 
clinantur,  ut  eccum  eccam,  ilium  ellam,  cuius  cuia  cuium,  cuiatis  nos- 
tratis. 


[40] 

non  pro  nomine  sed  cum  ipso  nomine  fiectitur  ut  hie  pater.  ^ 
Eccum  is  given  as  one  of  the  'pronomina  ignota'  which 
•  have  five  cases i^  (45,8)  sunt  etiam  quae  penta  cassibus 
utuntur  ut  eccum,  dativus  ecco,  accusativus  eccum.,  vocati- 
vus  eccum,  ablativus  ecco.  hoc  masculinum  est,  femininum 
ecca,  dativus  eccae,  accusativus  eccam,  vocativus  ecca, 
ablativus  ecca. 

At  125,29  Virgilius  says  that  some  people  are  in  doubt 
whether  such  words  as  eccum.  ellum  are  pronouns  or  adverbs: 
sunt  pronomina  de  quibus  ambigitur  utrum  pronomina  an 
adverbia  intellegi  debeant  ut  eccum  ellum.  At  69, 16  he 
calls  such  words  as  mecum  tecum  adverbs:  sunt  adverbia, 
quorum  condicio  ab  ahis  partibus  orationis  nascitur  ut  est 
mecum  tecum,  secum  nobiscum  vobiscum.  me  enim  accusa- 
tivus cassus  est,  cum  vero  ablativi  est  praepositio  et  faciunt 
adverbium  simul.-^ 

Quis,  qui,  etc.  At  57,3  we  find  quis  for  quibus:  sed  ea 
quis"*  nascuntur,  primae  coniugationis  sunt.  At  8,8  we 
find  quisdam  for  quibusdam:  arte  ac  dicione  velut  quisdam 
conpaginibus  arctubusque  suffunta  est.  At  129,18  quis  is 
used  for  aliquis:  sicut  enim  quis  viatorum  via  proposita 
gradiens,  etc.  At  139,22  we  find  quem  for  quam:^  quis 
enim  sibi  viam  orationis  finget,  quem  nuih   prius   atrivere 


'  ((Pliny  is  probably  responsible  for  the  use  of  articulus  in  the  sense 
of  the  definite  articleo,    Nettleship,  p.  159.     See  Probus,  IV  133,9. 

-  Nene  cites  only  eccum  eccam  eccos  eccas  (II  988-7).  Donatus  (K. 
IV  381,3). 

•'  Donatus,  IV  362,28,  calls  mecum  tecum  etc.  'adverbia  personalia'. 
So  do  Charisius,  I  181,25;  Cledonius,  V  66,31;  Victorinus,  VI  202,3; 
Andax,  VII  348,22.  Cf.  Priscian,  II  593,  25  K:  quaeritur,  'eccum, 
eccam,  ellum,  ellam,  eccos,  eccas,  mecum,  tecum,  secum,  nobiscum, 
vobiscum, '  pronomina  sint  composita  an  adverbia? ....  sunt  ergo  sine 
dubio  pronomina. 

*  As  we  shall  see  from  the  forms  cited  below,  quis  for  quibus  was 
considered  regular  by  Virgilius. 

5  Brix,  Miles  Glor.  362,  shows  how  in  the  earliest  Latin  quis  was 
relative  as  well  as  interrogative,  and  could  be  used  for  the  feminine. 
The  examples  cited  by  Neue  II,  442,  shows  how  quae  gradually  made 
a  way  for  itself  in  classical  Latin. 


[41] 

praecGssores ?  Virp:iliiis  shows,  however,  that  there  exist- 
ed in  his  time  a  very  great  confusion  both  in  their  use  and 
in  their  declension.  At  46,16  he  says:  qui  et  quis,  quae  et 
qua,  quod  et  quid  similiter  inveniuntur.  Here  he  seems 
to  have  paired  them  in  the  order,  (1)  relative  (2)  interro- 
gative. At  130,24  he  reverses  the  order  of  the  first  pair 
only,  and  retains  the  former  order  for  the  other  pairs: 
Alia  sunt  pronomina,  quae  geminata  vocantur  ut  quis  qui, 
quae  qua,  quod  quid:  unde  et  in  ablativo  cassu  habemus  a 
quo  vel  a  qui,  a  qua  vel  a  qui,  a  quihus  vel  a  quis.  This 
might  indicate  that  he  made  no  distinction  between  quis 
and  qui,  but  in  his  own  usage  quis  is  the  interrogative 
form.  Of  the  feminine  pair  (quae  qua)^  he  uses  only  quae. 
Virgilius  reports  that  some  people  used  qui  for  all  genders 
and  all  cases:  ^  (130,30)  nonnulli  contendunt  qui  omni  generi 
quoaptari  posse,  quippe  cum  in  ablativo  dicamus  a  qui  viro, 
a  qui  m.idiere,  a  qui  opere,  sive  horum  sententia  stare  de- 
bet, qui  per  omnen  numerum  omnenque  cassum  monoptota 
quadam  declinatione  fruetur,  ut  qui  vir,  qui  viri,  qui  viro, 
qui  virum,  qui  mulier,  qui  muheris  et  qui  muHeres, 
qui  muherum;  qui  nomen,  qui  nominis,  qui  nomina,  qui  no- 
minum  et  cetera  huiusmodi.  Others  avoided  confusion  by 
a  change  of  declension  in  each  of  the  three  pairs — quis  qui, 
quae  qua,  quod  quid.  These  declensions  are  given  at  131,6: 
quidam  separatim  utrumque  pronomen  flecti  conantur  et 
sic  habent:  quis,  quuius,  quui,  quem,  a  quo;  qui,  quorum, 
quibus,  quos,  a  quibus.  alia  vice  qui,  quius,  quium,  o,  o 
qui  et  in  plurali  numero  duo  ii  ponuntur,  ut  quii,  quium, 
quiis,  quios,  o,  a  quiis.  sic  et  quae,  cuius,  cui  (qui  duo 
cassus  per  c  propter  discretionem  harum  declinationum 
non  secus  ponuntur)  quam,  o,  a  qua:  et  in  pluraliter  quae, 


'  Qua  is  clearly  an  analogical  form  made  to  complete  the  three  pairs. 

-  It  had  already  been  used  as  the  masculine  nominative  (both  singu- 
lar and  plural)  and  as  the  singular  ablative  of  all  genders.  Moreover 
its  pronunciation  was  identical  with  that  of  the  dative  cui:  cf.  the 
spelling  of  quoaptari,  130,30. 


[42] 

quarum,  quibus,  quas,  a  quibus.  altera  vice  qua  et  in 
genitivo  per  duo  ee  quaeae,  quaeae,  quaeam,  a  quaea  vel 
a  qui,  quaeae,  quaearum,  quis,  quaeas,  a  quiis:  et  neutra- 
liter  quod,  quius,  quui,  quod,  o  a  quo,  quae,  quorum,  qui- 
bus, quae,  o,  a  quibus,  et  pluraliter  quaeae,  quaeeorum  vel 
quium,  ut  melius  videtur,  quis  quaeae,  (quibus),  o,  a 
quibus.^ 

Verbum^ 

Virgilius  regarded  verbum  as  a  compound  of  two  'modi' 
(ver  and  bum):  (50,6)  verbum  igitur  duobus  ex  modis 
constat  ver  ex  verbere,  quod  lingua  gutturi  infligit,  bum  ex 
bucino,  quod  vox  reboat.  nam  sicut  homo  ex  corpore  con- 
stat et  anima  ita  et  verbum  ex  lingua  et  voce.  Augustinus 
(see  K.  VIII  205,21)  also  regarded  it  as  a  compound  (-vere 
boando,  i.  e.,  vere  sonando).^  The  derivation  usually  given 
is  verberatus  aeris.  So,  for  example  Priscian  (K.  II  367, 
7):  verbum  autem  quamvis  a  verberatu  a'oris  dicitur;  Cle- 
donius  (K.  V  10,10)  has  verbum,  quod  verberat  os  motus 
Hnguae  reductus.     See  also  Pompeius  (K.  V  97,8). 

Virgilius  does  not  define  verbum  except  to  call  it  a  part 
of  speech  (134,11)  which  has  certain  accidentia  (50,10). 
Donatus  gives  the  following  definition:  (K.  IV  359,4)  Ver- 
bum quid  est?  Pars  orationis  cum  tempore  et  persona 
sine  casu  autagere  aliquid  aut  pati  aut  neutram  significans. 
He  then  states  the  accidentia.  Consentius  says  (K,  V 
365,29):  verbum  est  pars   orationis   factum  aliquod   habi- 


1  For  confusion  in  other  authors  of  late   Latin  compare   Bonnet,  p. 
389:    Ronsch,  p.  276. 

-  See  Jeep,  p.  185. 

^  See  August.  Dial.,  p.  9,13:    verbum  enim    cum  dicimug,    inquiunt, 
prima  eius  syllaba  verum  significat,  secunda    sonum;    hoc  enim  volunt 

esse  'bum' ergo  verbum    dictum  est  quasi   a   verum  boando, 

hoc  est  verum  sonando.  Cf.  Priscian's  derivation  of  vox  (K.  II,  6,5), 
'vox'  autem  dicta  est  vel  a  vocando,  ut  'dux'  a  ducendo,  vel  diro  tov  Pou, 
ut  quibusdam  placet. 


[43] 

tumve  significans  cum  tempore  et  persona,  sine  casu.  fac- 
tum quod  significatur  agentis  aut  patientis  vim  continet: 
agentis,  ut  seco  uro:  patientis,  ut  secor  uror.  cum  vero 
neutrum  liorum  significationi  inest,  habitus  quidam  tantum 
modo  demonstratur,  ut  est  sto  sapio  vivo.  See  also  Pris- 
cian  (K.  II  3(39,2),  Asper  (K.  VIII  18,10). 

In  his  epitomae  Virgilius  discusses  the  verb  according  to 
seven  species,'^  in  the  following  order:  1  qualitas  (50,13); 
2  coniugatio  (58,8);  3  numerus  (60,18);  4  figura  (60,25); 
5  persona  (62,12);  6  significatio  (63,8);  7  tempus  (64,9). 
Donatus  (K.  IV  359,6)  counts  the  same  number  and  em- 
ploys the  same  terms,  except  that  he  has  genus^  instead 
of  significatio.  Virgilius  says  that  some  people  use  genus, 
but  that  he  has  rejected  it,  because  it  should  be  applied 
only  to  nomina  (63,9).  Most  of  the  grammarians  recog- 
nized either  genus  or  significatio.  Diomedes  (K.  I  334,12) 
and  Priscian  (K.  II  373,10)  prefer  significatio  to  genus. 

With  reference  to  the  order  in  which  the  accidentia  are 
treated,  no  two  of  the  grammarians  agree  entirely. ^  Vir- 
gilius (51,7),  Donatus  (K.  IV  358,6),  Pompeius  (K.  V 
213,36),  and  Cledonius  (K.  53,31)  agree  in  giving  qualitas 
the  first  place,  coniugatio  the  second.  They  also  include 
under  qualitas,  modi  and  formae.  In  Diomedes  (K.  I  342, 
29)  qualitas  includes  formae  only;  modus  is  an  accidens. 
Priscian  (K.  II  369,16  and  427,10)  instead  of  qualitas  uses 
species,  which  includes  formae  only:  he  also  makes  modus 
an  accidens.  Charisius  (K.  I  164,16)  uses  the  adjectives 
finita  and  infinita  to  distinguish  between  a  finite  verb  and 
an  infinitive."^ 

In  his  Epistolae  Virgilius  says  (134,13)  that  many  people  ^ 


'  The  grammarians  call  them  accidentia. 

-  Charisius  (K.  I  144,22),  Pompeius  (K.  V  213,36)  have  genus  only. 

'  The  commentators  on  Donatus  follow  his  order. 

^  See  also  Victorinus  (K.  VI  199,24). 

^  Galbungus  and  Cornilius  made  such  a  division  (134,20). 


[44] 

regard  the  verbum  not  as  a  single  part  of  speech,  but  as 
twelve  parts:  1  status,  2  formatio,  3  ordinatio,  4  modera- 
tio,  5  subfiguratio,  6  adnumeratio,  7  iminotatio,  8  indaga- 
tio,  9  adfirmatio,  10  inchogatio,  11  praelatio,  12  declinatio. 
And  he  himself  here  treats  the  verb  according  to  this  di- 
vision. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  Epitomae  which  corresponds  to 
this  use  of  status.  I  find  nothing  like  it  in  the  gramma- 
rians. At  134,31  he  defines  it:  Status  igitur  verbi  hie  est, 
quod  omnis  dictio  atque  ratio  vel  sententia  usque  ad  verbi 
locutionem  differtur  et  quodammodo  mutificatur.  Some 
call  it  virtus  (135,2).  The  whole  purpose  of  the  discus- 
sion of  status  is  to  show  the  superiority  of  the  verbum 
over  all  the  other  parts  of  speech.  Cornilius  likened  it  to 
a  king  whose  moods  are  many  and  varied:  (133,30)  quia 
verbum  simile  esse  debet  regi,  cuius  animi  status  multi  et 
diversi  sunt:  non  enim  in  sedatu  et  bello  uno  modo  regnat 
neque  in  gaudio  et  tristitia,  aliquoties  enim  rigidum  esse, 
aliquoties  mitem,  modo  fortitudinem  regiae  potestatis  os- 
tendere,  modo  clementiam  et  infirmam  quodammodo  pro- 
ferre  lenitatem.  simile  etiam  modo  verbum  multos  in 
sese  continet  status:  nunc  enim  fortitudinem  infirmis  lar- 
gitur,  nunc  fortibus  aufert  firmitatem.  So  Pompeius 
remarks  upon  the  superiority  of  the  verb:  (K.  V  212,4) 
pars  ista  artis  id  est  de  verbo,  quo  maior  est,  eo  etiam 
uberior  et  rationabilior  at  utilior.  He  says  further  that 
the  term  Verbum'  m.eans  'verberato  aere  ictu  linguae' — 
a  process  by  which  all  the  parts  of  speech  are  uttered. 
But,  since  the  verb  is  used  more  often  than  any  other  pai't 
of  speech,  it  alone  received  this  name  (K.  V  149,28  f. ). 

Formatio  (135,15)  and  moderatio  (144,11)  of  the  Episto- 
lae  correspond  to  qualitas  of  the  Epitomae.  This  Virgilius 
divides  into  formae  and  modi  (51,7), 

Ordinatio  (142,27)  corresponds  to  coniugatio. 

Subfiguratio  (148,26)  corresponds  to  figura  composita. 

Adnumeratio  (149,33  f.)  has  nothing  to  correspond  to  it. 
It  is  the  process  of  calling  over  the  parts  that  go  to  make 


[45] 

up  each  species,  and  then  summing  them  up. 

Inmotatio  (151, 20f.)  is  concerned  with  the  different 
methods  of  obtaining  emphasis  or  distinguishing  shades 
of  meaning:  1  by  doubling  consonants  (aggo  for  ago,  151, 
28) ;  2  by  intonation  (lego  and  lego,  152,21) <i>;  3  by  feeUng 
('per  sensus'),  which  seems  to  mean  the  ability  to  distin- 
guish between  two  words  of  similar  spelling  but  of  different 
meaning,  e.  g.,  credo,  credo  (152,26);  4  by  the  use  of  dif- 
ferent prepositions  in  verb  compounds,  e.  g.,  construo, 
adstruo  (153,9);  5  by  the  use  of  a  present  tense  where  pro- 
per sequence  would  demand  a  past  tense  (153,14). 

Indagatio  (153,20)  is  the  grouping  of  verbs  into  conjuga- 
tions according  to  the  vowels  a  e  i,  also  the  arranging  of 
the  verb  according  to  tempus. 

AfRrmatio  (154,1  f.)  is  the  use  of  two  synonyms  for  the 
sake  of  emphasis:  reges  Romanos  aequa  et  vera  sententia 
credimus  et  fidimus. 

Inchogatio  (154,12)  has  reference  to  inchoative  verbs, 
and  corresponds  to  one  of  the  formae,  which  is  a  division 
of  qualitas. 

Praelatio  (154,32)  corresponds  to  ordo,  which  some  of 
the  grammarians  regard  as  an  accidens.  It  applies  only  to 
the  'modi'. 

Declinatio  is  the  inflection  of  the  verb. 

Qualitas  (A  ModiY 

Virgilius  recognizes  seven  modes:  indicative  (51,11), 
imperative  (51,16),  optative  (52,8),  subjunctive  (53,5), 
infinitive  (53,10),  impersonal  (54,9),  gerund,  or  verba  ge- 
rundi  vel  typici  (56,10).  The  Grammatici  Latini  all  agree 
that  the  first  five  of  these  are  'modi'.  Diomedes  (K.  I 
338,13)  and  Priscian  (K.  II  421,18)  recognize  only  five. 
Donatus  (K.  IV  381,18)  has  an  impersonal  mode,  but  pre- 


'  See  Jeep,  p.  216. 


[46] 

fers  to  call  it  a  'genus*  ^  instead  of  a  'modus*.  Servius  on 
Donatus  (K.  IV  411,29)  adds  a  seventh  mode,  'gerundi'. 
The  other  grammarians  give  varying  numbers  of  modes, 
from  seven  to  ten. 

Virgilius  has  followed  the  traditional  order  2  of  the 
grammarians,  but  comments  upon  an  arrangment  preva- 
lent among  some  of  his  contemporaries,  based  upon  the 
order  of  the  vowels;  viz,  1  imperative,  based  upon  the  a 
of  the  first  conjugation  in  this  mode:  (144,23)  ita  ut  ab 
imperativo  modo  declinationem  verbi  exordirentur;  prae- 
cipue  si  in  a  literam  desineret,  ut  macta  liga  planta.  2  In- 
finitive based  upon  the  final  e:  (144,25)  et  ab  hoc  modo 
finito  infinitivus  modus  sequeretur,  quia  in  e  literam  finia- 
tur  ut  mactare  ligare  plantare.  3  Indicative  based  upon 
the  perfect  ending  i  and  the  present  ending  0;  (144,27) 
deinde  post  hunc  tutum,  cum  ad  indicativum  ventum  fuis- 
set,  a  praeterito  tempore  perfecto  incipientes,  quod  vi 
litera finitur  ut  mactavi  ligavi  plantavi,in  praesenti  tempore 
finem  verbo  statuerent,  quia  in  0  terminatur  ut  macto  ligo 
planto.  ^ 

Modus  indicativum:  *  Virgilius  says  that  the  indicative 
mode  gets  its  name  from  the  fact  it  indicates  'per  ipsum* 
what  has  been  done,  what  is  being  done,  and  what  will  be 
done:  (51,14)  hie  autem  ob  hoc  indicativus  dicitur,  quia  et 
quae  acta  sunt  et  quae  aguntur  et  quae  agebuntur  per  ip- 
sum  indicantur  ut  vido  vidavi  vidabo.  Compare  Cledonius(K. 
V  54,6),  indicativus  ob  hoc  dicitur  quia  quae  indicamus 
pronuntiando  dicimus;  Servius  on  Donatus  (K.  IV  411,30), 
indicativus  dicitur  modus,    quoniam  per  ipsum  quod  geri- 


'  See  also  for  this  classification  Pompeius  (K.  IV  216,16)  and  Mac- 
robius  (K.  VIII  48,20). 

2  This  order  is  explained  by  Priscian  (K.  II  423,24  f.) 

^  I  find  no  traditional  basis  for  this  theory. 

*  'Indicativus'  (Charis.,  Dosith.,  Victorin.,  Audax) ;  'indicativus  qui 
et  pronuntiativus' (Donat.jProb,. Consent. ); 'indicativus  sive  definitivus' 
(Prise.  K.  II  421,18);  'finitus'  (Diomedes,  K  I  338,17). 


[47] 

mus  indicamus.  Virgilius  calls  this  the  strongest  of  the 
modes  (51,11),  Primus  et  fortissimus  indicativus  nomina- 
tur.  Many  call  it  the  modus  rectus,  and  the  others  the 
modi  proclivi:  (51,12)  quem  rectum  ex  omnibus  multi  vo- 
cant,  ceteros  autem  proclivos.  Macrobius  (K.  V  611,36) 
says:  denique  Stoici  hunc  (indicativum)  solum modum  rec- 
tum, veluti  nominativum  et  reliquos  obliquos,  sicut  casus 
nominum,  vocaverunt.  ^ 

Modus  imperativus:  This  mode  is  the  second  in  order: 
(51,16)  imperativus  secundus  est,  per  quem  omne  quod 
efRci  debet,  imperatur  ut  vida.  VirgiHus  says  (51,18) 
that  some  people  would  put  it  ahead  of  the  indicative,  ^ 
but  that  'Aeneas'  and  'Cicero'  insisted  that  in  good  authors 
it  always  came  second,  especially  because  it  had  no  first 
person.  3  Compare  Priscian  (K.  II  423,26),  imperativus 
est,  quo  imperamus  aliis,  ut  faciant  aliquid  vel  patiantur, 
qui  ideo  secundum  tenuit  locum,  quod  per  se  absolutus 
quemaduodum  indicativus, non  indigetauxilio  alterius  partis 
ad  plenam  significationem,  licet  per  tempora  et  personas 
deficiat  naturaliter. 

Modus  optativus:  Virgilius'  conception  of  this  mode  is 
the  common  one  of  the  grammarians:  (52,8)  optativus 
modus  dicitur,  per  quem  omne  quod  concupiscible  animo 
fit,  optatur.  *  unde  et  adverbium  optandi  frequenter  ad- 
sumit  hoc  est  utinam  cuius  est  sensus  vellim.  Some  of  the 
grammarians  say  simply:  optativus  dicitur,  quoniam  habet 
adverbium  optantis;  so  Servius  (K.  IV  441,31),  Pompeius 
(K.  V  215,20). 

The  explanation  of  utinam  by  vellim  raised  a  question 


'  Priscian  (K.  Ill  431,14)  uses  the  epithet  rectus,  but  proclivi  for  ob- 
liqui  is  not  found  in  the  grammarians. 

2  See,  also,  144,21. 

=*  Some  people  recognized  a  first  person  singular,  and  conjugate  lau- 
dem,  lauda  vel  laudes  (145,11);  cf.  Diomed.  K.  V  338,31. 

*  Cf.  Diomedes  (K.  I  340,5),    unde  ab  optando  optativus  dictus   est. 
See  also  Cledonius  (K.  V  54,7). 


[48] 

as  to  the  propriety  of  putting  it  with  any  person  but  the 
first.  This  is  answered  by  translating  utinam  by  vellis  in 
the  second  person.  Virgilius  says  that  when  ut  is  used 
instead  of  utinam,  the  meaning  is  different;  that  Aeneas 
would  then  speak  of  a  modus  causativus^  (52,18). 

Virgilius  himself  recognizes  three  tenses  for  the  optative: 
(52,20)  aboritur  alia  quaestio  in  hoc  eodem  modo,  quare 
optativus  modus  non  solitum  temporum  numerum  suppleat, 
sicut  indicativus  et  coniunctativus,  sed  tantum  trina  decli- 
natione  coniunctis  dumtaxat  duobus  in  unum  temporibus 
sic  flectitur.  These  were:  future,  ut  audiam  (65,16);  pre- 
sent, utinam  rogarem  (148,9) ;  past,  utinam  rogassem  (148, 
11).  Many  people  rejected  the  future  tense,  and,  omitting 
the  ut,  called  the  verb  an  imperative  ^  (65,16  f.).  Macro- 
bius  (K.  V  620,24)  tells  what  the  Latins  have  done  with 
respect  to  the  tenses  of  the  optative:  in  hoc  enim  modo 
Latini  tempora  Graecorum  more  coniungunt,  imperfectum 
cum  praesenti,  plusquamperfectum  cum  perfecto,  et  hoc 
adsignant  duobus  antecedentibus,  quod  in  coniunctivo 
praeteriti  imperfecti  fuit,  utinam  legerem,  hoc  duobus  se- 
quentibus,  quod  in  coniunctivo  plusquamperfecti  fuit,  et 
hoc  dant  futuro,  quod  habuit  coniunctivus  praesentis,  uti- 
nam legam.  Priscian  regards  the  future  optative  as  per- 
fectly natural;  the  praeteritum  tempus,  he  says,  may  seem 
strange  (K.  II  407,10  f.).  See,  also,  Cledonius  (K.  V  20, 
24),  Consentius  (K.  V  375,3f.),  Diomedes  (K.  I  391,  18f.). 

Modus  coniunctivus.  ^  Virgilius  explains  the  name:  (53, 
5)  coniunctivus  modus  duas  ob  causas  sic  vocatur  vel  prop- 
ter coniunctionum  partes,  quae  adiunguntur,  ut  scilicet 
quamquanfi  quamuis  quamlibet  nisi  sin,  vel  quod  propter 
in  quassorum  conpositione  coniunctativus  modus  praece- 


*  No  such  distinction  is  made  by  the  Grammatici  Latini. 

2  Compare  145,  9  f . 

^  Virgilius  sometimes  uses  the  form  'coniunctativus'.  See  Huemer's 
Index. 


[49] 

denti  indicative  copulatur  ut  cum  videm.^  Compare  Cledo- 
nius  (K.  V  16,14):  Coniunctivus  ideo  dictus,  quia  solus 
sensum  implere  non  potest.  Priscian  calls  this  a  modus 
subiunctivus,  and  says:  (K.  II  424,12)  Quartus  est  subiunc- 
tivus  [quippe  iure] .  qui  eget  non  modo  adverbio  vel  con- 
iunctione,  verum  etiam  altero  verbo,  ut  perfectum  signifi- 
cet  sensum. 

Modus  infinitivus:  This  mode  Virgilius  characterizes  as 
follows:  (53,10)  infinitivus  modus  a  quibusdam  communi- 
cativus  2  vocitatur  pro  eo  videlicet,  quod  vel  nomini  et  ver- 
bo vel  omnibus  personis  verborum  numerisque  communis 
habeatur.  Priscian  calls  it  modus  infinitum:  (K.  II  425,9) 
Infinitus  est  qui  et  personis  et  numeris  deficit,  unde  et  no- 
men  accepit  infiniti,  quod  nee  personas  nee  numeros  defi- 
nit  et  eget  uno  ex  quattuor  supra  dictis  modis  ut  significet 
aliquid  perfectum.  Compare  Pompeius  (K.  V  215,39):  in- 
finitivus dicitur  modus  ab  eo  quod  non  definiat  personas; 
also  Augustinus  (K.  V  510,38):  nunc  de  modo  infinito,  qui 
ideo  infinitus  dicitur,  quia  superiores  definiunt  personas 
primam  secundam  et  tertiam;  hie  autem  modus  sine  per- 
sonis est  et  habet  solum  tempus  praefinitum  praesens 
praeteritum  et  futurum. 

The  infinitive  as  a  Substantive:  Virgilius  says  that  an 
infinitive  can  be  used  only  in  the  nominative,  accusative 
and  ablative   singular :3  (53,12)  hoc   sane   sciendum   quod 


'  So  Pompeius  says  that  coniunctivus  is  so  named,  not  because  it  has 
the  particle  cum  (K.  V  215,19),  but  because  it  joins  the  indicative  to 
itself  to  express  its  meaning  (K.  V  215,36),  ergo  ideo  dicitur  coniunc- 
tivus modus,  quod  coniungit  sibi  indicativum  modum  ad  exprimendum 
sensum  suum.  Charis.,  Dosith.,  Consent.,  Victorin. ;  Audax  prefer 
'coniunctivus'.       Prob.,    Sacerdos,  and  Priscian  prefer  'subiunctivus'. 

■^  The  name  is  not  found  elsewhere.  For  'perpetuus'  see  Diomedes 
(K.  I  340,34);  Probus  (K.  IV  156,2);  Consentius  (K.  V  375,14).  For 
'impersonativus'  and  'insignificativus'  see  Diomedes  (K.  I  340,37). 

^  For  the  history  of  this  construction,  see  Schmalz,  p. 419,  n.  2;Diez, 
p.  921;  Meyer-Liibke,  II  482.  Schmalz  says  that  in  Classical  Latm  the 
infinitive  w^as  used  only  in  the  nominative  and  accusative,  but  by  Ter- 
tullian's  day  it  could  be  used  in  all  the  cases. 


[50] 

infinitivus  modus,  quandocumque  pro  nomine  ^  accipiatur, 
trium  tantum  cassum  vicem  expleat,  nominativi  scilicet  et 
accussativi  ablativique,  quod  semper  pro  neutralis  generis 
significatione  numero  dumtaxat  singulari  solebit  evenire. 
For  this  usage  he  quotes  the  following  illustrations:  (54,1) 
quid  tarn  iocundum  nobis  esse  potest,  quam  in  hoc  nostro 
dilegere  permanere;  (54,4)  solis  currere  die  aestivo  iocun- 
dissimum  est;  (54,8)  lexisti  assiduum  bellare  in  toto  curri- 
culo  vitae. 

Modus  impersonalis:  The  grammarians  ^  who  regard  the 
impersonal  as  a  mode  recognize  that  it  may  also  be  classed 
as  a  'genus'.  ^  Virgihus  gives  no  hint  of  this.  His  con- 
temporary Terrentius  claimed  that  the  impersonal  mode  is 
found  in  any  'genus'  except  the  passive:^  (147,9)  inperso- 
nale  verbum  ab  omni  verbo  significatorio,  id  est  tarn  activo 
quam  deponenti,  tam  neutrali  quam  communi,  nasci  indu- 
bitali  assertione  solere  excepto  passivo;  in  the  passive  of 
the  third  person,  the  personal  and  impersonal  coincide: 
(147,12)  nam  quod  ab  activo  tertiae  personae  verbi  passivi 
similitudine  dirivatur,  passivum  iterum  non  repetit,  prae- 
sertim  cum  passivum  verbum  absque  nominativo  cassu  as- 
seri  non  valeat.  Galbungus  claimed  that  impersonal  verbs 
are  found  only  in  active  and  neuter  'genera'  (147,  15).  ^ 
Virgilius  agrees  with  Terrentius.  The  impersonal  verbs 
oportet  pudet  taedet  paenitet  decet  are  classed  as  exceptions 
to  this  rule,  because  they  have  no  personal  form.^ 


1  Cf.  Priscian  (K.  II  425,  9,  quoted  above;  II  408,  27).  At  422,  8  he 
states  that  some  preferred  to  consider  the  infinitive  as  an  adverb. 

2  So  Donatus  (K.  IV  383,  18),  Servius  (K.  IV  411,  27). 

'■^  So  Pompeius  (K.  V  216,  16),  Consentius  (K.  V  37,  23). 

*  The  passive  was  excepted  because,  they  said,  an  impersonal  verb 
cannot  be  derived  from  itself  (55,  15). 

5  So  Priscian  (K.  II  425,  13) ;  but  cf.  432,  9.  See,  also,  Consent. 
(K.  V  372,  14),  Serg.  Explanat.  in  Donat.  (K.  IV  549,  5). 

"  Some  of  his  contemporaries  admitted  the  forms  paenites,  etc.  to 
make  the  rule  uniform  (55,17).  Compare  Commenturn  einsidlense  (K. 
VIII  2.52,  24). 


[51] 

Virgilius'  test  for  impersonal  verbs  may  be  illustrated 
from  his  comment  on  placet.  In  the  expression  placet  mihi 
hie  sermo,  placet  is  personal  because  it  has  a  nominative 
case,  sermo,  as  suject:  (55,24)  si  ergo  haec  nominativum 
cassum  admiserint,  manifestum  est,  quod  tertiae  personae 
sunt  ut  placet  mihi  hie  sermo.  In  the  expression  placet 
mihi  dicere,  placet  is  impersonal,  since  it  has  the  dative 
case  joined  to  it  and  is  followed  by  the  infinitive:  (56,  2) 
si  vero  dativum  cassum  habuerint  sibi  adiunctum,  quem 
infinitivus  modus  sequatur,  apparet,  quod  inpersonalia 
sunt  ut  placet  mihi  dicere.  Compare  this  with  the  rule 
given  by  Asper  (K.  VIII  48,  20):  Nam  propterea  inperso- 
nalis  dicitur,  quod  cum  dicis  legitur,  non  ostendis  a  quo 
legatur;  also  Cledonius  (K.  V  16,  18):  inpersonahs  modus 
est,  qui  de  significatione  sua  personas  non  facit,  sed  de 
pronominibus  personas  sumit,  ut  legitur  a  me,  a  te,  ab  illo 
vel  ab  eo;  Explanat.  in  Donat.  (K.  V  550,25);  Pompeius 
(K.  V  216,19). 

Modus  gerundi:  The  modus  gerundi,  or  as  Virgilius 
terms  it,  verba  gerendi  vel  typici  (56,10),  seems  to  be  the 
result  of  an  attempt  on  the  part  of  certain  of  the  Gramma- 
tici  Latini  to  discriminate  between  the  gerund  with  its 
active  meaning  and  the  gerundive,  or  future  passive  par- 
ticiple, with  its  passive  meaning.  On  this  point  compare 
Servius  on  Donatus  (K.  IV  412,18-25),  Cledonius  (K.  V  17, 
18),  Pompeius  (K.V  218,20),  Macrobius  (K.  V  626,29), 
Sergius  on  Donatus  (K.  IV  504,  37).  Virgilius  himself 
discusses  this  so-called  mode  under  participles,  and  not 
under  modes,  where  he  merely  states  that  it  is  a  mode  (56, 
10).  The  teachers  of  Virgilius  held  that  this  mode  was 
derived  from  the  future  passive  participle:^  (70,23)  geren- 
di vel  typici  verba  de  participiis  dirivata  fideles  quique 
doctorum  ita  intellegunt,    ut  eligendi  genitivum   participii 


'  Macrobius  (K.  V  626,  28)  banc  (sic)  quidam  gerundi  modum  vel 
participalem  vocant,  quia  verba  eiu3  paene  omnia  similia  participiis 
sunt  et  sola  significatione  distantia. 


[52] 

verbi  passivi,  temporis  futuri.  And  some  people  used  the 
nominative  case:  (71,3)  unde  et  quidam  nominative  cassu 
huius  participii  in  eandem  formam  ussi  sunt. 

At  71,6  Virgilius  explains  the  name:  gerendi  autem  ver- 
ba dicuntur,  quia  opus  quod  natura  non  erat  suum,  vi  ali- 
qua  gerunt.  He  also  calls  this  mode  typicalis,^  because  it 
was  formed  on  the  model  of  the  future  passive  participle: 
(71,9)  typici  autem  verba  ideo  dicuntur,  quia  ex  praedicto 
participio  typicata  sunt. 

Qualitas  B:  Formae^ 

Virgilius  in  his  Epitomae  gives  four  formae,  in  the  fol- 
lowing order:  forma  perfecta  (56,14),  forma  meditativa 
(56,16),  forma  frequentativa  (56,20),  forma  inchoativa 
(57,14).  In  his  Epistolae  he  treats  forma  meditativa  last 
(140,23).  Donatus  (K.  IV  359,10)  employs  the  same  names 
in  the  same  order;  so,  also,  Audax  (K.  VII  345,1).  The 
usual  order  is  meditativa,  inchoativa,  perfecta,  frequenta- 
tiva. Pompeius  explains  why  they  were  so  arranged:  ^ 
(K.  V  219,5)  formae  sunt  quattuor,  meditativa  inchoativa 
perfecta  et  frequentativa.  hae  formae  secundum  naturalem 
artem  conpositae  sunt,  nam  re  vera  omne  quod  agimus 
quaerit  primo  adsumptionem  consilii;  deinde  cum  sumpse- 
rimus  consilium  ut  inchoemus;  cum  inchoaverimus,  ut  pos- 
simus  perficere;  cum  perfectum  fuerit,  ut,  si  placeat,  fre- 
quentius  hoc  utamur.  ideo  et  istum  ordinem  tenuit.  Vir- 
gilius evidently  puts  forma  perfecta  first  because  of  its 
completeness  (56,15). 

Forma  perfecta.  Virgilius  dismisses  this  in  few  words: 
(56,14)     Nunc  de  formis  verborum  paucis  licet  diserendum 


'  In   Commentum   Einsidlense    (K.  VIII   210,10)    we   find    'typicus 
modus'.     The  Grammatici  Latini  do  not  use  this  expression. 

-  See  Jeep,  p.  187. 

■'  See  Servius  (K.  IV  412,  28),   Victorinus    (K.  VI  200,1).    Cledonius 
(K.  V  17,31).  For  a  different  division,  see  Priscian  K.  II  342,  29. 


[53] 

est,  quae  formae  IIII  sunt:  prima harum  perfecta  est,  quae 
per  omnes  modos  numeros  figuras  personas  tempora  per- 
fecta declinatur.  Compare  Audax  (K.  VII  345,2) :  Perfec- 
ta forma  cur  dicitur?  quia  plenus  est  in  ea  indicantis 
sensus  ut  lego.  See,  also,  Pompeius  (K.  V  220,10).  Dio- 
medes  calls  it  forma  absoluta:  (K.  I  342,33)  absoluta  ver- 
borum  qualitas  est  quae  semel  vel  absolute  aliquid  facere 
nos  indicat,  ut  curro.  Pris.  (K.  II  407,12)  calls  it  'primi- 
tiva'. 

Forma  frequentativa.  As  for  frequentatives,  Virgilius 
says  (136,22):  formae  ergo  sunt  evidentes  atque  usitatae, 
quarum  prima  frequentativa  nominatur;  quod  in  Galbungi 
scola  sumi  non  erat  solitum,  sed  magis  adiectivam  ^  dicere 
consuerunt,  dicentes  eam  non  Uteris  modo,  verum  etiam 
sensibus  adiciendam  esse,  quidam  non  adiectivam  sed 
accumulativam  ^  vocitarunt:  cum  enim  dicis  victito,  hoc  in- 
tellegi  das,  quasi  id  dixeris  magis  ac  magis  vinco.  Saepe  ^ 
and  frequenter  are  the  words  commonly  used  to  explain 
frequentatives:  compare  Servius  (K.  IV  411,  36)  quarta 
est  frequentativa,  quae  nos  aliquid  saepe  agere  ostendit, 
ut  lectito:  significat  enim  saepe  lego;  Cledonius  (K.  V  16, 
28)  frequentativa  est  quae  nos  ostendit  frequenter  aliquid 
facere. 

Virgilius  says  that  some  verbs  have  two  frequentative  for- 
mae: (57,8)  sunt  et  non  pauca  in  eadem  forma  per  quosdam 
gradus  tam  Uteris  quam  intellectu  crescentia.  dicimus  enim 
curro  curso  cursito,  sed  curro  hoc  tantum  significat,  quod 
in  itinere  possitus  nullam  facio  conperendinationem,  curso 
autem  paulo  citius  aliqua  necessitate  extorquente  f estinare 
cogor,  at  cursito  quando  hoste  me  insequente  fugio.  Com- 
pare Plotius  (K.  VI  431,12) :     haec  duo   gradus   recipit  ut 


1  I  do  not  find  this  epithet  elsewhere  applied  to  forma. 

-  This  name  is  not  used  by  the  grammarians. 

^  Virgilius  uses  saepe  at  56,21:  dicito  hoc  est  sepe  dico. 


[54] 

aucto  et  auctito,  cnrso  et  cursito.  Again  Virgilius  says 
(139,4) :  [Regulus]  dicebat  etinam  unumquodque  ^  verbum 
duas  habere  formas  frequentativas  vel  tres  ut  lego  lecto 
legito  lectito.  Compare  Donatus  (K.  IV  382,  4) :  et  fre- 
quentativa  saepe  in  tres  gradus  ducunt  verbum,  ut  curro 
curso  cursito,  saepe  in  duos  tantum,  ut  volo  volito. 

Forma  inchoativa.  With  reference  to  this  form,  Virgi- 
lius says  (138,3):  inchogativa  forma  est  quae  inchogari 
quidem  sed  non  finiri  videtur.  Compare  Pompeius  (K.  V 
219,18):  Inchoativa  est  ista  quae  nos  aliquid  inchoare  os- 
tendit ....  sed  fieri  plus  quidam  significat  ab  ilia  priore,  ut 
est  calesco.  This  idea  of  entrance  upon  an  action  is  to  be 
found  in  the  definition  of  the  grammarians  in  general. 
Priscian  says  simply:  (K.  II  429,16)  ut  inchoativa,  quae 
initium  actus  vel  passionis  significat. 

Virgilius  gives  three  vi^ays  of  testing  inchoative  verbs: 
1  they  will  have  no  perfect  tense;  2  they  will  be  of  the  third 
conjugation;  3  they  will  come  from  regular  verbs  of  the 
second  conjugation:  (57,17)  quaecumque  enim  verba  verae 
formae  inchogativae . . . .  et  tertiae  coniugationis  erunt  ut 
fioresco  lucesco  feriiesco  calesco  et  cetera,  nascuntur  autem 
haec  ex  verbis  secundae  coniugationis  formae  perfectae  ut 
Jloreo  luceoferueo  caleo.  Compare  Pompeius  (K.  V  219, 
20):  haec  regula  quinque  rebus  tenetur;  nisi  quinque  res 
istae  fuerint,  non  potest  stare,  ut  oriatur  a  neutrali,  ut  in 
SCO  syllabam  exeat,  ut  careat  tempore  praeterito  perfecto 
et  plusquamperfecto,  ut  careat  participio  futuri,  ut  sit  ter- 
tiae coniugationis  correpta.  See,  also,  Donatus  (K.  IV 
381,30), Probus(K.  V  158,1). 

Forma  meditoMva.  Virgilius  gives  the  following  brief 
comments  on  the  forma  meditativa  (56,16)  secundaestme- 
ditiva,  quae  aliquoties  meditatur  sed  non  perficitur.  uno 
enim  modo  et  una  persona  quasi  prima  et  hoc  raro  inveni- 
turutfacturio,  tanquam  si  dicat  dicere  quandoque  propono ; 


'  No  grammarians  say  this. 


[55] 

(140,23)  de  forma  vero  meditativa  multi  ambigunt  utrum 
penitus  esse  debeat  an  non,  multis  negantibus  et  aliis  ad- 
firmantibus.  ^  He  employs  propono  where  the  grammarians 
use  volo.  Compare  Servius  on  Donatus  (K.  IV  412,32): 
una  enim  meditativa,  quae  non  agere  nos  aliquid,  sed  adhuc 
velle  agere  ostendit,  ut  est  lecturio;  significat  enim  non 
lego,  sed  legere  volo.  Consentius'  explanation  approaches 
more  nearly  the  propono  of  Virgilius:  (K.  V  376,4)  medi- 
tativa (verba)  sunt  quibus  non  actus,  sed  agendi  appara- 
tus ostenditur,  ut  amaturio.  See,  also,  Priscian  (K.  II 
429,19)  and  Sergius  (K.  IV  505,16). 

Verbum,  Coniugatio.  ^ 

Virgilius,  in  his  Epitomae,  employs  the  term  coniugatio, 
but  in  his  Epistolae,  ordinatio:  (141,12)  ordinatio  ergo  est, 
quam  coniugationem  verborum  consuetudinarie  nomina- 
mus:  nam  quod  iugum  in  Uteris  sonat,  ipse  manifestatim 
ordo  tenet,  unde  rati  sunt  maiorum  plurimi  non  coniuga- 
tiones  sed  ordinationes  scribendas  esse.  Charisius  employs 
ordo  instead  of  coniugatio:  (K.  I  168,35)  Ordines  verborum 
sunt  quattuor,  qui  verba  dispertiunt.  Also,  he  calls  the 
inflexion  of  the  verb  declinatio:  (K.  I  169,11)  Declinatio 
verbi  ordinis  primi.  Virgilius  likewise  uses  declinatio  to 
designate  the  inflexion  of  the  verb:  (66,17)  sunt  et  alia 
quae  declinatione  diflicillima  sunt  \xtfio  fisfit. 

Virgilius'  own  idea  of  coniugatio  is  a  grouping,  or  ar- 
rangement, of  verbs  according  to  the  natural  order  of  the 
three  vowels,  a,  e,  i:  (153,22)  in  coniugatione,  quidem  per 
tres  literas  principales  indagatur,  quae  sunt  a  e  i,  quibus 
quasi  quadam  indagine  a  secunda  persona  modi  indicativi 
omnis  coniugatio  per  singulos  modos    dinoscitur  ut  laudas 


'  Wolfflin  (Archiv  I  409)  saya  that  these  verba  are  carefully  avoided 
in  Tragedy  and  in  the  Epic;  that  in  late  Latin  they  are  seldom  found; 
and  that  in  the  Romance  Languages  they  have  completely  disappeared. 

■^  See  Jeep,  p.  245. 


[56] 

fulges  sepis.  Compare,  also  141,14,  nam  quod  iugum  in 
literis  sonat,  ipse  manifestatim  ordo  tenet;  and  58,12,  qui- 
dam  quidem  hoc  in  fine  habent,  quod  ideo  coniugatio  vo- 
cetur,  quia  tota  latinitas  his  tribus  coniugationibus  velut 
quodam  iugo  sustentatur.  alii  vero  propter  ordinem  liter- 
arum  coniugationes  verborum  putant  esse  ordinandas  eo, 
quod  hae  literae  iugum  quoddam  verbis  praestant  a  se 
portandis.  Priscian's  explanation  (II  442,24)  is:  'coniuga- 
tio' autem  nominatur  vel  propter  coniugatas  consonantes, 
hoc  est  cognatas,  ex  quibus  pleraeque  apud  Graecos  con- 
iugtiones  regulam  sumunt,  vel  quod  una  eademque  ratione 
declinationis  plurima  coniugantur  verba,  quod  magis  ad 
Latinorum  naminationem  aptius  est.  Augustinus  (K.  V 
511,41)  says:  nam  inde  dicitur  coniugatio,  quod  sibi  ad 
unum  sonum  multa  coniugat. 

Priscian's  actual  definition  of  coniugatio  (K.  II  442,18) 
is:  coniugatio  est  consequens  verborum  declinatio.  Con- 
sentius  (K.  V  380,29)  says:  coniugatio  est  collectio  quae- 
dam. . .  .verborum  simili  declinatione  currentium. 

Virgilius  recognizes  three  regular  conjugations:  (58,10) 
Coniugationes  tres  sunt.  Cominianus  (K.  1175,31),  Pom- 
peius,  (K.  V222,15),Phocas  (K.  1430,21),  recognize  only 
three.  Diomedes  (K.  1347,16),  Probus  (K.  IV  33,18), 
Donatus  (K.  IV  359,23)  divide  the  third  conjugation  into 
the  is  and  ts,  according  to  the  second  person  singular  of 
the  present  indicative.  Virgilius,  though  he  does  not  make 
such  a  division,  evidently  had  a  traditional  knowledge  of 
it:  (142,15)  Quod  autem  dicturos  nos  fore  promisimus,  hoc 
est,  quod  tertia  coniugatio  producta  in  specialibus  intelle- 
gatur  modis.  Priscian  speaks  of  four  conjugations:  (K. 
II  442,23)  sunt  igitur  coniugationes  quattuor  apud  Latinos, 
cum  apud  Graecos  decern  sint;  cf.  Charis.  (K.  I  168,35), 
Eutyches  (K.  V  449,16). 

Virgilius  classed  the  verbs  according  to  the  vowels  a,  e, 
i:  (58,10)  prima  ab  a,  secunda  ab  e,  tertia  ab  i.  Again  at 
59,11  he  says:  omnis  coniugatio  in  omni  verbo  activo  et 
neutrali   ante  novissmam  literam  a  recipit  vel  e  vel  i,    in 


[57] 

omni  autem  passive  communi  et  deponent!  ante  novissimam 
syllabam  hisdem  Uteris  utitur.  Compare  this  statement 
with  Donatus  (K.  IV  359,13):  prima  quae  est?  Quae  indi- 
cative modo  tempore  praesenti  numero  singular!  secunda 
persona  verbo  activo  et  neutrali  a  productam  habet  ante 
novissimam  litteram,  passive  communi  et  deponent!  ante 
novissimam  syllabam,  ut  amo  amas,  amor  amaris:  et  fu- 
turum  tempus  eiusdem  modi  in  bo  et  bor  syllabam  mittit, 
ut  amo  amabo,  amor  amabor. 

This  comparison  shows  what  a  vague  and  incomplete 
idea  Virgilius — or  his  Epitomator — had  of  the  rule  of  the 
Grammatic!  Latin!.  The  final  syllable  (novissimam  sylla- 
bam), to  which  he  refers  in  59,11,  is  the  final  syllable  of 
the  second  person  of  the  present  indicative.  Compare  his 
own  comment  on  possum  and  j)oteo:  (59,15)  sunt  verba 
nullius  coniugationis,  quae  in  consonantem  desinunt  ut 
sum  possum  literam.  est  poteo  secundae  coniugationis  et 
potentiae  maioris,  sed  secunda  persona  prioris  verbi  potes 
corripi  debet,  sequentis  vero  producenda  est  potes.  This 
rule  was  sufficient  for  the  first  and  second  conjugations. 
In  the  third  conjugation,  as  seen  in  Virgilius  and  in  his 
authorities,  it  was  necessary,  in  order  to  distinguish  verbs 
like  audio  from  verbs  capio  or  rego,  to  apply  some  addition- 
al test.  The  test  chosen  is  the  first  and  second  person 
singular  of  the  present  indicative,  the  first  person  sin- 
gular of  the  perfect  indicative  active,  the  present  imper- 
ative singular  active  and  the  present  infinitive:  (142,15) 
Quod  autem  dicturos  nos  fore  promisimus  hoc  est,  quod 
tertia  coniugatio  producta  in  specialibus  intellegatur  modis, 
hoc  est  quia  primo  indicative  modo  tempore  praesenti  per- 
sona prima  facile  dinoscatur,  dicis  enim  audio,  hiic  i  ante 
o  habeat  ut  lanio,  vel  propter  ea  verba,  quae  nee  teta  pro- 
ducta, nee  omnino  correpta  esse  repperiantur:  recurrasad 
praeteritum  tempus  eiusdem  modi  perfectum  ubi  nihil 
cripescium  remansurum  est  ut  si  dicas  audivi;  dehinc  ad 
imperativum  modum  ut  audi,  deinde  ad  infinitivum  ut  au- 
dire.     E'er  the  verbs  like  capio,  the   'verba  fallacia',  as  he 


[58] 

calls  them  in  59,28,  the  first  and  second  persons  singular 
of  the  present  indicative  and  the  second  person  of  the 
present  imperative  were  deemed  a  sufficient  test.  For  the 
rule  of  the  three  conjugations  see  also  Diomedes  (K.  I  346, 
31),  Donatus  (K.  IV  359,13),  Pompeius  (K.  V  223,9  and 
20),  Sergius  (K.  IV  506,34). 

Virgilius  says  that  the  school  of  Galbungus  made  a  fourth 
conjugation  for  the  verbeo  and  its  compounds.^  He  himself 
includes  them  in  the  type  of  audio.  Donatus  (K.  IV  382, 
28)  also  says  that  some  would  class  verbs  whose  future 
ends  in  ibo  into  a  fourth  conjugation.  Virgilius'  teacher 
Aeneas,  when  asked  his  opinion,  would  say  only  that  eo 
had  two  futures,  earn  and  ibo  (60,17).2 

For  the  division  into  four  conjugations  as  in  modern 
usage,  see  especially  Priscian:  (K.  II  442,18)  Per  ordinem 
igitur  vocalium  locum  singulae  obtinent  apud  nos.  cum 
enim  omnia  verba,  quae  aequali  regula  declinantur,  in  o 
vel  in  'or'  desinant,  in  o  quidem  terminantia,  si  primae 
sint  coniugationis,  in  'as'  efl'erunt  secundam  personam,  ut 
'oro  oras',  'sto  stas';  sin  secundae,  in  'es',  ut  'moneo  mon- 
es',  'haereo  haeres';  sin  tertiae,  in  'is'  correptam,  ut  'cupio 
cupis',  'curro  curris';  sin  quartae,  in  'is'  productam,  ut 
'munio  munis',  'esurio  esuris'.  in  'or'  vero  verba  primae 
coniugationis  in  'aris'  faciunt  secundam  personam,  ut 'amor 
amaris',  'criminor  criminaris',  'luctor  luctaris';  secundae 
in  'eris'  producta  paenultima,  ut  'doceor  doceris',  'reor 
reris';  tertiae  in  'eris'  paenultima  correpta,  ut  'legor  leg- 
eris',  sequor  sequeris' ;  quartae  in  'iris',  ut  'munior  munir- 
is',  'molior  moliris',  'audior  audiris'.  This  same  theory  is 
also  seen  in  Asper  (K.  V  551,29);  Eutyches  (K.  V  450,10); 


'  Cf  60,  8:  sunt  verba,  quae  tertiae  coniugationes  productae  a  multia 
6836  dicuntur  ut  eo  et  quae  illi  conponuntur  id  est  praetereo  praeeo  in- 
troeo.  sed  quia  hace  verba  nunc  e,  nunc  i  adaumunt,  quam  ob  causa m 
a  plerisque  maxime  ab  omni  scola  Galbungi,  quam  et  ego  adivi,  quar- 
tae coniugationis  fieri  credita  sunt.  See,  also,  142,25. 

2  Cf.  59,12  and  143,17. 


[59] 

Charisius  (K.  I  168,  35). 

Virgilius  conjugates  fio  in  the  present  and  imperfect  indi- 
cative as  in  the  Classical  Latin:  (66,17)  fio  fis  fit,  imper- 
fectum  fiebam.  The  perfect  he  gives  as  fui,  the  pluper- 
fect as  fueram:  (66,19)  perfectum  fui,  plusquam  fueram. 
He  says  that  many  use  as  the  optative  of  fio  the  forms 
forem  fores  foret,  instead  of  fierem:  (66,21)  obtativus  mo- 
dus a  multis  declinatur  forem  res  ret,  a  nonnullis  fierem. 
Fio  has  also  a  passive  voice  in  the  present,  imperfect,  fu- 
ture, and  perfect;^  (66,22)  habet  passivum  verbum  fior 
firis  fitur  et  cetera;  fiebar  fitus  sum,  futurum  fiar.  He 
gives  as  the  imperative  fiere^  et  cetera,  infinitives  are 
fieri  fitum  esse  vel  fuisse.  He  further  states  that 
sum  has  no  imperfect  or  perfect,  but  gives  eram  eras 
erat  as  the  pluperfect:  (67,3)  est  et  aliud  verbum 
satis  difficile  ut  sum,  quod  praeteritum  imperfectum 
non  habet  nee  perfectum  nisi  plusquam  eram  eras  erat. 
Essem  is  given  as  the  pluperfect  subjunctive:  (67,9)  plus- 
quam (connunctivus)  cum  essem.  This  passage  indicates 
that  the  confusion  between  fio  and  sum  was  already  an  ac- 
complished fact  in  the  time  of  Virgilius.^  The  Grammatici 
Latini  indicate  no  such  confusion.  Virgilius'  own  usage 
further  indicates  such  a  confusion.  Compare,  for  instance, 
the  usage  of  Virgilius  himself  in  5,18:  Latinitatis  autem 
genera  sunt  XH,  quorum  unum  usitatum  fitur,  optatur; 
(3,4)  sapientia  autem  ex  sapore  hie  nominatur,  quia  sicut 
in  corporis  fit  gustu,  ita  et  in  animae  motu  quidam  sapor 
est;  (175,30)  itaque  de  praepositionibus  haec  breviter  satis 
edicta  fiant.  It  is  evident,  too,  that  the  feeling  for  eram 
had  quite  disappeared,    otherwise  he  would   never  have 


»  Priscian  (K.  I  337,10)  says  that  M.  Cato  used  fitur   and  fiebantur. 
For  fitus  est,  see  also  Neue  111,  629. 

-  Ronsch,  Itala  und  Vulgata  294,  gives  this  form  for  the  imperative. 

•'  See  Meyer-Liibke,  Gram,  der  Romanischen  Sprachen  II  p.  328  and 
376;  Diez,  910. 


[60] 

reckoned  it  as  pluperfect.  ^ 

Verbs  found  in  two  different  conjugations.  At  58, 32  Vir- 
gilius  says:  sunt  et  alia  verba  duplicis  per  omnia coniuga- 
tionis  ut  vido  vidas,  video  vides.  sed  vido  ad  mentis  oculos 
refferendum,  video  ad  carnales.  sic  tego  tegas  velatio  con- 
silii  est,  at  tego  tegis  tectum  vissibile  significat;  sic  do  das 
dat  isponte  largiti  est,  dedo  dedis  vis  regiae  coactio  est.  sic 
Cicero  dicit  conati  in  dedicionem  Romanorum  iura  susci- 
pere.  sic  etiam  probo  probas  alicuius  rei  examinatio  est, 
at  probo  probis  cum  manus  medicorum  aegrescentium  cor- 
pora contractant.  sic  et  volo  volas  volatile  est,  volo  vis  vo- 
luntarium  est.  sic  et  cogo  cogis  necessitatis  est,  at  cogo  co- 
gas  coniunctio  uxoris  ad  virum.  ussurpo  pas  alicuius  nomi- 
nationis  sive  praesumptionis  est,  at  usurpeo  pes  inchoatio 
conscriptionis. 

Numerus  ^ 

Virgilius  says  simply  that  verbs  have  two  numbers:  (60, 
18)  Numeros  verborum  duo  esse  sine  circuitione  ulla  de- 
finimus.  This  is  the  number  regularly  given  by  the  gram- 
marians, though  sometimes  they  discuss  the  Greek  dual.  ^ 
He  also  says  that  there  are  fifty  verbs  which  have  no  sin- 
gular: (60,19)  sunt  tamen  L  verba,  quae  singularem  nu- 
merum  non  habet  ut  vocitamus."*  He  does  not  enumerate 
these  verbs;  and  there  seems  to  be  no  traditional  authority 
for  the  number  of  fifty.  He  says  that  some  verbs  have  no 
plural,  and  cites  as  an  example  pugillito.^ 


'  See  Bonnet,  641. 

-  See  Jeep,  p.  215. 

3  Donatus  (K.  IV  384,1);    Sacerdos  (K.  VI  432,7).      Probus    (K.  IV 
156,  5)  counts  a  common  number. 

^  Examples  of  the  singular  of  this  verb  are    found  in  Virgilius'  own 
writings  (53,11;  137,3). 

*  This  word  is  found  only  in  this  passage. 


[61] 

Figura^ 

The  grammarians  as  a  rule  dispose  of  figura  verhi  by 
saying  that  verbs  are  compounded  just  as  nomina  are. 
Compare  Diomedes  (K.  I  335,  10) :  Componuntur  autem 
verba,  sicut  nomina,  etc.  See,  also,  Donatus  (K.  V  384, 
4f.),  Probus  (K.  IV  159,35),  Pompeius  (K.  V  234,34). 
Virgilius  says  nothing  about  the  process  of  composi- 
tion,- but  discusses  only  the  effect  produced  by  combin- 
ing different  prepositions  with  the  same  verb.  This  he 
illustrates  by  examining  some  of  the  compounds  of  clamo: 
(61,  2)  nam  clamo  clamoris  simplicis  est,  conclamo  simul 
cum  multis;  est  etiam  acclamo  cum  falso  aliquem  accuse 
sicut  Cicero  de  Prassio  solis  innocens  acclamationibiis  pu- 
nitus  est.  reclamo  aliquem  exeuntem  vocitans;  inclamo  et 
succlamo  murmurandi  est:  proclamo  laudandi  vel  deprecan- 
di  exaltatio;  declamo  rhetorizandi;  exclamo  quando  pro  vi- 
ribus  vocem  elevo.  At  148,27  he  says  that  compositio  serves 
three  different  purposes:  primum  ergo  requirendum  est 
quare  conpositio  verbo  accidat?  ob  tres  ut  opinor  causas, 
prima  est  quarum  propter  sensuum  expletionem  vel  inmo- 
tationem:  secunda  propter  metri  compositionem:  tertia  est 
propter  loquelae  ipsius  decorem  conponendum.  An  example 
of  the  first  is,  doceo,  perdoceo  (149,4);  an  example  of  the 
second  iscedo  concedo  (149,16):  bella  Galloriiyn  toto  conces- 
sent  in  orhe.  hie  enim  con  nihil  ad  sensum  addidit,  propter 
quod  versum  tantum  explcvit.  He  gives  no  example  of  the 
third. 

Persona  ^ 

The  persons  of  the  verb  are  three:    (62,12)      Personae 
verborum  sicut  et  pronominum  tres  sunt.     Diomedes    (K. 


»  See  Jeep,  p.  212. 

2  For  this  see  Priscian  (K.  II  434, 20f.). 

■'  See  Jeep,  p.  243. 


[62] 

1  334,20)  defines  persona:  Persona  est  substantia  rationa- 
lis.  Virgilius  gives  no  rule  for  distinguishing  between 
the  persons.  Donatus'  method  will  illustrate  the  rule  of 
the  grammarians:  (K.  IV  384,17)  Personae  verbis  acci- 
dunt  tres,  prima  secunda  tertia.  prima  est  quae  dicit, 
lego,  secunda  cui  dicitur,  legis,  tertia  de  qua  dicitur,  legit. 
Virgilius  claims  that  the  Latin  language  does  not  use  the 
first  person  resum  and  7'esumus'^  (62,15);  that  soleo  has  no 
second  person  (62,20). 

Significatio,  or  Genus^ 

Virgilius  implies  that  significatio  was  usually  treated 
after  coniugatio:  (62,27  f.)  forte  enim  aliquis  inquirat, 
cur  non  statim  post  coniugationem  significationem  exposu- 
erim,  cum  hie  a  plerisque  possitus  sit  ordo.  Aeneas  was 
so  much  disturbed  that  Virgilius  had  not  treated  it  in  this 
order  that  he  wrote  to  him  for  an  explanation  (62,23  f. ). 
Virgilius  explains  that  he  had  followed  Gratianus,  in  whose 
school  he  had  spent  ten  years.  Although  the  Grammatici 
Latini  differ  widely  in  the  arrangement  of  the  accidentia 
verbi,  significatio  or  genus  is  more  frequently  treated  just 
after  coniugatio.  Compare  Donatus  (K.  IV  359,6),  Pom- 
peius  (K.  V  213,36),  Cledonius  (K.  V  53,30),  Asper  (K. 
VIII  48,19),  Audax  (K.  VII  344,9). 

In  common  with  the  majority  of  the  grammarians,  Vir- 
gihus  counts  five  genera  of  the  verb;  (63,10)  1  active  (11) ; 

2  neuter  (12);  3  passive  (17);  4  deponent  (18);  5  common 
(20).  The  usual  order  of  the  grammarians  is  active,  pas- 
sive, neuter,  common,  deponent.'^  Pompeius  counts  only 
two  genera,  active  and  passive:  (K,  V  277,5)  ceterum  om- 


'  Reesse,  he  says,  means  resedere  (62,17). 

2  See  Jeep,  p.  167. 

3  See  Pompeius  (K.  V  227,3  f.). 

^  Donatus  (K.  IV  383-2)  puts  common  last. 


'        [63] 

ne  verbum  duas  res  significat,  aut  agentis  aut  patientis, 
nee  potest  alia  inveniri  significatio.  So  also  Servius  (K. 
IV  413,35).  Probus,  who  regards  genus  and  qualitas  as  a 
single  accidens,  adds  three  new  genera  to  the  five  already 
mentioned:  inchoative,  frequentative,  and  defective  (K. 
IV  156,  lOf . ) .  For  the  impersonal  verbs,  which  some  treat 
under  significatio,  see  modus  impersonalis  (treated  above). 
Virgilius  defines  and  gives  examples  of  each  significatio: 
1  genics  activum:  quaedam  enim  ex  eis  activa  vocantur, 
quae  agunt  ut  Turnum  colo  (63,10).  2  genus  neutrum: 
quaedam  neutra,  quae  nee  agere  in  natura  habent,  nee  pati 
licet. . .  .ut  ambulo  curro  (63,12).  3  genus  passivum:  pas- 
siva  sunt,  quae  pati  semper  habent  ut  mittor  a  Romulo 
(63,17).  4  (/en^^s  deponens:  deponentia  sunt,  quae  cum 
passivi  similitudinem  in  declinatione  habeant,  passionem 
tamen  ipsa  qualitate  deponunt  ut  for  faris  (63,18).  5  genus 
commune:  communia  vere  dicuntur,  quae  et  agere  et  pati 
sub  eadem  declinatione  habent  ut  veneror  regem,  et  veneror 
a  rege  (63,20).  Compare  Cledonius  (K.  V  18,34):  Genera 
verborum  quae  et  significationes:  activa  sunt  quae  se  aliquid 
agere  demonstrant,  passiva  quae  pati,  neutra  quae  nihil 
horum:  deponentia  per  catantifrasin,  hoc  est  per  contra- 
rietatem,  sicut  Parcae,  quod  nulli  parcant;  aut  certe  ideo 
dictum  est  deponens,  quod  deponat  significationem  activam: 
communia  quae  et  agentis  et  patientis  sibi  vindicant  signi- 
ficationem: et  de  activo  passivum  fit,  et  de  passive  activum. 
Osculor  tunc  activum  significat,  quando  accusativum  ca- 
sum  regit,  ut  osculor  ilium;  tunc  passivum,  quando  ablati- 
vum,  ut  osculor  ab  illo:  dicimus  enim  osculor  te  et  osculor 
a  te. 


[64] 

Tempora  ^ 

Virgilius  says  that  verbs  have  three  tenses  (64,9):  Tem- 
pora verborum  sicut  et  saeculi  tres^  sunt:  praeteritum 
praesens  futurum.  Compare  Diomedes:  (K.I  385,27)  trifa- 
riam  tamen  cuncta  gerimus,  ideoque  tria  tempora  esse  di- 
cimus,  instans  perfectum  futurum.  Virgilius  further  says 
that  the  ancients  began  the  inflection  of  the  verb  with  the 
past  3  (64,13),  veteres  initium  dechnandi  a  praeterito  per- 
fecto  habebant;  that,  because  they  counted  no  imperfect 
as  pluperfect,  they  then  inflected  the  present  and  lastly 
the  future  (64,13f. ).  He  says  that  he  follows  the  order: 
present,  past,  future  (64,16f.).  For  the  threefold  division 
of  the  past  tense  he  ofi'ers  the  following  explanation:  (64, 
20)  praeteriti  quoque  temporis,  quid  sibi  videatur  triformis 
ilia  divissio,  succinctim  explicabo.  praeteritum  inperfec- 
tum  velut  praesenti  proximum  ob  hoc  dicitur,  quia  non 
certo  vel  condicto  die  temporeue  sed  quasi  passim  et  ali- 
quantis  horis  actum  vel  dictum  significatur.  praeteritum 
autem  perfectum  certiusacdefinitius  factum  essemonstra- 
tur;  plusquam  idcirco  sic  dicitur,  quia  longius  etperfectius 
ostenditur  inpletum.  ^  Donatus  (K.  IV  360,9)  says  that 
verbs  have  three  tenses,  praesens,  praeteritum,  futurum; 
but  that  in  the  inflexion  of  verbs  there  are  five  tenses:  ^ 
praesens,  praeteritum  imperfectum,  praeteritum  per- 
fectum, praeteritum  plusquamperfectum,  futurum.  Vir- 
gilius recognizes  the  same  number  and  order:  (66,17)  sunt 
etaha  quae  decHnatione  diflicillima  sunt  et  fio  fisfit,  licet 


1  See  Jeep,  p.  239. 


2  This  is  the  usual  division  made  by  the  grammarians,  but  praesens 
comes  first.  See  Charisius  (K.  I  168,6),  Probus,  (K.  IV  155,36),  Dona- 
tus (K.  IV  384,10). 

'■*  There  is  no  traditional  warrant  for  this  arrangement. 

*  See  Diomedes'  explanation  of  these  tenses  (K.  I  334,391). 

^  This  is  the  usual  number  employed  by  the  grammarians. 


[65] 

secunda  persona  multis  non  placeat.  inperf ectum  fiebam, 
perfectum /2*i,  plusquam  fueram,  futurum  fiam  fies  fiet, 
imperativus  fiat  fiamus,  futurum  fito  fiat. 

Of  these  tenses  the  only  one  which  needs  consideration 
is  the  future.  At  58,20  Virgilius  says:  hocnosse  debemus, 
quod  uniuscuiusque  coniugationis  verbum  duplex  futurum 
tempus  habeat.  dicimus  enim  interrogabo  et  interrogam 
ges  get,  videbo  videam,  audibo  audiam,  agam  agebo.  For 
the  breaking  up  of  the  old  future  system  and  for  a  discus- 
sion of  the  leveling  process  to  which  our  author  is  here 
alluding,  see  especially  Thielmann,  Archiv  II,  157,  and 
references. 

At  65,8  Virgilius  says:  veteres  etiam  futurum  tempus 
velut  in  duas  quasdam  partes  dividebant  ut  videbo  et  videro, 
quasi  aliut  sit  quod  crastino  et  quod  in  longo  tempore  sit 
eventurum.  unde  et  a  plerisque  pro  futuro  secundo  tempo- 
re promissivum  modum  in  ussu  habebant.  nos  autem  nee 
futurun  secundum  tempus  nee  promissivum  modum  reci- 
pientes  et  quod  prope  et  quod  longe  futurum  est,  sub  u- 
nius  futuri  temporis  significatione  declinamus.  The  inter- 
esting thing  about  this  statement  is  the  evidence  it  gives 
of  the  fact  that  not  only  the  future  perfect  indicative  but 
all  feeling  for  such  a  tense  had  disappeared.  The  same  con- 
dition is  also  reflected,  for  example,  in  Priscian  (11,405, 
IS):  melius  tamen  Romani  considerata  futuri  natura, 
quae  omnino  incerta  est,  simplici  in  eo  voce  utuntur 
nee  finiunt  spatium  futuri.  ^  For  the  Classical  distinction, 
see  Asper  (K.  V  551,27):  futuri  gradus  sunt  duo,  perfec- 
tus,  ut  legam,  plusquamperfectus,  ut  legero. 

Here,  too,  perhaps  may  be  mentioned  the  process,  appar- 
ently prevalent  at  this  time,  of  building  new  verbs  by 
using  the  future  perfect  as  a  present.  See  Virgilius  66,3: 
adiciuntur  ut  legero  ris  rit,  legerimus  ritis  rint  et  hoc  indi- 
cativo  modo  tempore  praesenti  ut  sequentia  declarant:    in- 


'  See  Blase. 


perfectum  legerebam,  perfectum  legessi,  plusquamperfec- 
tum  legesseram,  f uturum  legeram  res  ret,  imperativo  lege- 
re  legerat  legeramus  legerite  vel  legeratis  legerant;  f uturum 
legerito  legerat  et  pluraliter  legeramus  legeritote  vel  legera- 
tis legerant  vel  legerunto.  obtativo  modo  utinam  'legererem 
legereres  legereret  legereremus  legereretis  legererent. '  *le- 
gessissem  legessisses  legessisset,  legessissemus  setis  sent', 
futurum  'legeram  legeras  rat'  sic  rite  per  hunc  ordinem 
declinatur  et  in  passive  habet  tempore  praeterito  'leges- 
tus  sum';  (137,23)  'haec  vobis,  amici,  quasi  populi  mei  fi- 
liis,  diligenter  emando  et  scripsero'.  neque  enim  crededum 
est  doctum  virum  (aiunt)  cum  copulativam  coniunctionem 
interposuerit,  non  duo  praesentia  verba  conaffixisse.  unde 
et  multi  nostrorun  maxime  Gallorum  hoc  verbum  primae 
coniugationis  esse  opinantur,  ut  dicant  sepe  'scripseravi  et 
scripserabo  ac  scripserare'  et  cetera.  A  collection  of  exam- 
ples is  given  by  Schuch,  II  392.  Virgilius  himself  uses  one 
of  these  secondary  forms  at  8,13:  de  potestate  autem, 
quia  magna  ex  parte  legestum  est,  bigerro  sermone  clefa- 
bo. 

Participium  ^ 

Virgilius  quotes  his  teacher  Aeneas  as  saying  that  a  par- 
ticiple, if  set  at  the  end  of  its  sentence,  may  take  the 
place  of  a  verb:  (161,14)  quod  si  in  fine  testimoniorum  po- 
situm  fuerit,  pro  verbo  accipiatur;  quod  tamen  non  iugi 
consuetudine  sed  raro  accidit.  At  72,6  he  maintains  that 
this  construction  is  not  to  be  explained  by  assuming  an 
omission  of  the  copula:  nonnulli  hoc  ignorantes  est  sumunt 
aliunde. 

At  161,19  he  discusses  what  is  now  known  as  the  'abla- 
tive absolute'.  He  states  that  the  nominative  case  of  the 
participle  and  the  ablative  are  often   interchanged,  and 


1  See  Jeep,  p.  259. 


[67] 

that  the  ablative  is  often  found  where  one  might  expect 
the  nominative:  nominativus  cassus  participii  modoetabla- 

tivus  sepe  pro  se  invicem  ponuntur nam  pro  nominati- 

vo  ablativum  participalem  positum  sepe  invenimus,  secun- 
dum illud  Glengi:  hoste  per  portas  rumpente  cives  vacilla- 
verut.  This  construction,  he  adds,  is  variously  explained. 
Some  called  it  a  use  of  the  seventh  case,  some  followed 
the  tradition  of  Galbungus  and  regarded  it  rather  as  the 
eighth  case.  Aeneas  sided  with  the  latter  group;  and  gave 
an  example  to  show  what  he  meant  by  the  eighth  case: 
(162,16)  octavo  autem  casu  'hoc  prosone  declamante'. 
But  instead  of  this  case  the  nominative  is  often  used:  ^  (162, 
16)  pro  quo  cassu,  ut  diximus,  nominativus  sepe  ponitur 
. . .  .sicut  in  versu  Bregandi  Lugenici  legimus :  so^i^s  Cato 
miles,  populus  turbatus,  in  acie  stetit.  quasi  hoc  dixisset: 
solus  populo  turbato  stetit.  Here  again  some  people  vainly 
try  to  explain  the  construction  by  assuming  the  omission  of 
the  copula:  (162,23)  quod  multi  penitus  ignorantes  verbum 
possuere  est,  quod  omnino  sine  coniunctione  causali  fieri 
non  potest. 

At  163, 29f.  he  reports  a  wide-spread  fashion  of  using 
participles  instead  of  finite  verbs:  et  haec  consuetudo  ve- 
tusta  tenuit  fortitudinem  per  multas  Africae  atque  Europae 
provincias,  ut  participia  pro  verbis  sumi  soleant.  He  quotes 
an  example  from  Galbarius:  (163,35)  in  principio  quidem 
contuebilis  mundus  ab  incontuebili  potestate  creatus,  sole 
et  luna  omnibus  etiam  astris  varia  pictura  splendentibus 
ornatus,  nascituris  in  eo  mortalibus  sensus  loculentissimi 
conlaturus  adapertionem,  et  in  omnium  fine  resolvendus 
aut  etiam  reformandus.  This  usage  was  not  taught  in  the 
schools  which  he  had  attended;  still,  he  is  prepared  to  ac- 
cept it,  if  it  can  be  found  in  the  highest  ancient  authorities: 
(164,15)  quod  si  inveneremus,  nos  quoque  imitari  sententia 
est. 


1  For  the  history  of  the  nominative  absolute  in  Latin,  see    Schmalz, 
p.  391,  n.  3 


[68] 

Many  people  hold  that  a  participle  cannot  be  compared:  ^ 
(164,21)  nam  multi  arbitrantur  participium  non  posse 
omnino  conparari,  quos  autenticae  lectionis  renuit  amplitu- 
do.  Virgilius  insists  (164,25f.)  that  the  present  participle 
intransitive  and  the  past  participle  passive  are  undoubted- 
ly capable  of  comparison:  e.  g.  audens  audentior  audentis- 
simus,  doctus  doctior  doctissimus.  If  anyone  objects 
to  his  statement  that  the  past  participle  active  may  also  be 
compared,  and  insists  that  such  words  as  sapiens  amens, 
because  of  their  regular  comparison,  should  be  regarded 
as  adjectives  rather  than  as  participles,  he  can  appeal  to 
the  high  authority  of  Maevius :  ( 165, 16)  in  quo  ostendit  omne 
genus  non  solum  appellatorum  nominum,  verum  etiam 
verborum  hiis  praedictis  gradibus  conparari. 

At  165,21  he  gives  a  list  of  what  he  called  participles, 
though  others  insisted  that  they  should  rather  be  called 
adjectives  2  —  because  the  corresponding  verbs  were  not  in 
common  use:  togatus,  tunicatus,  mitratus,  calciatus,  gladia- 
tus,  hastatus,  scutatus.  But  he  can  quote  two  of  these 
verbs  from  Aeneas:  (165,27)  milites  tunicantur  and  quis 
gladiabitur  in  hello.  And  he  finds  three  others  in  Horatius: 
magno  impetu  facto  hastaverunt  se  omnes  et  calciaverunt 
et  scutantes  se  inruerunt  (165,25).  At  169,12  he  quotes  the 
rule  of  Aeneas,  that  impersonal  verbs  have  no  paticiples, 
and  states  that  such  forms  as  decens  indecens  are  not  parti- 


'  Cf.  Charisius,  I  48,  5,  unde  ip^tur  dinoscitur  et  diseernitur  nomen 
a  participio?  quod  nomen  recipit  conparationem  et  superlationem;. . . . 
participium  autem  non  recipit.  The  same  distinction  is  made  by  Pro- 
bus,  IV  142,15;  Donatus,  IV  388,24;  Cledonius,  V  37,32;  Pompeius,  V 
258,2;  Plotius,  VI  444,2;  Priscian,  II  550,25. 

2  Donatus  called  such  words  as  tunicatus   galeatus    'nomina' :  IV  388, 

12,  sunt  nomina  speciem  participioriim  habentia  ut  tunicatus  galeatus, 
quae  quia  a  verbo  non  veniunt,  non  sunt  participiis  applicanda.  So,too, 
Charisius,  I  179,29;  Cominianus  ap.  Charis.  I  180,20;  Diomedes,  I  402, 
23;  Probus,  IV  142,  34;  Augustinus,  V  520,  21;  Priscian,  II  441,  13;  562, 

13.  Servius  regarded  them  as  participles:  IV  441,  3f.,  nam  licet  non  fa- 
ciat  tunico  galeo,  tamen,  quoniam  tempus  habent,  sine  dubio  partici- 
pia  sunt.  And  so  did  Plotius,  VI  444,  7. 


[69] 

ciples  but  adjectives.  ^ 

At  71,15  he  mentions  such  combinations  as  legeTis  eram 
(for  legeham  or  legi),  legens  ero  (for  legam).  ^  At  71,17  he 
reports  that  many  of  the  ancients  ('veteres')  used  to  com- 
bine two  futures  (salvandus  ero)  or  two  past  tenses  {sal- 
vatusfui).^  His  own  rule  is,  salvandus  sum  or  salvatus 
sum. 

Adverbium^ 

The  adverb  is  so  named  because  it  is  joined  to  a  verb: 
(156,20)  quia  verbo  semper  adiungitur.  But  it  may  also 
qualify  an  adjective  or  another  adverb  —  a  function  which 
some  people  indicate  by  a  different  name  expressorium: 
(157,5)  adverbium  in  duas  partes  dividunt,  unam  prisco 
nomine  adverbium  vocantes,  alteram  expressorium.  etenim 
adverbia,  quae  nominibus  vel  aliis  adverbiis  applicamus, 
non  tarn  adiunctionem  solitam  quam  sensuum  expressionem 
significant.  An  adverb  may  qualify  another  adverb  even 
when  there  is  no  comparison  involved,  as  tarn  digne,  valde 
viriliter,  satis  pulcre.  Here  some  people  wrongly  insert  an 
et:  (157,11)  unde  non  parvum  errent  qui  et  coniunctionem 
copulativam  interponunt,  ut  sit  satis  et  pulchre. 


1  Cf.  Diornedes,  1  398,29,  impersonalium  declinatio  non  facile  admit- 
tit  participia,  et  errant  qui  decens  pudens  participia  opinantur  esse, 
cum  sint  appellationes.  SoDonatus  says,  IV  388,7,  ab  inpersonali  ver- 
bo participia  nisi  usurpata  non  veniunt.  But  Servius  says  that  pudet 
and  taedet  are  not  merely  impersonal,  and  that  pudens  and  taedens 
are  genuine  participles:  IV  440,31,  nam  hoc,  quod  dicimus  pudet  tae- 
det tantum  dici,  invenimus  in  auctoribus  et  pudeo  et  taedeo;  unde 
fiunt  pudens  et  taedens:  participium  non  ab  inpersonali  videbitur,  sed 
a  verbo  integro. 

'■^  For  the  history  of  this  construction,  see  Blase,  Tempora  und  Mo- 
di, p.  256;  Diez,  p.  907;  Bonnet,  p.    653. 

■'  The  Romance  languages  point  to  such  combinations  as  salvatus  fui 
Diez,  p.  910,  cites  examples  from  the  oldest  diplomas  in  which  such 
forms  as  laudatus  fui,  laudatus  fueram,  were  regularly  em  ployed. 

^  See  Jeep,  p.  268. 


[70] 

Praepositio  ^ 

Virgilius  says  that  all  prepositions  which  take  the  accu- 
sative are  freely  interchanged  in  the  'other  kinds  of  Latin': 
(74,20)  in  aliis  latinitatis  generibus  pro  invicem  plerumque 
motantur.  He  quotes  examples  from  Gratianus:  apud 
mare  for  per  mare,  apud  Constantinopolin  for  in  C. 

At  173,  If.  he  gives  a  list  of  'inusitatae  praepositiones' 
from  the  fourth  kind  of  Latin  (philosophical):  con^  pro 
aput,  salion  pro  ante,  cyron  pro  adversus  vel  contra,  trasso 
pro  citra,  etc.  But  he  states  that  monosyllabic  preposi- 
tions have  only  one  form  in  the  various  dialects:  (173,3) 
hoc  primitus  scientes,  quod  monosyllabae  praepositiones 
nullum  aliud  praeter  usitatum  genus  habeant. 

Coniunctio  ^ 

Virgilius  reports  a  traditional  division  of  conjunctions 
into  five  classes:^  (169,23)  cuius  potestatem  in  quinque 
species  divisam  veteres  annumerant.  At  73,7  he  says: 
quamquam  in  V  species  coniunctio  divisa  sit.  The  first  class 
he  mentions  is  'copulativae':  (169,26)  quae  numerosex  sunt 


1  See  Jeep  p,  288. 

-  Virgilius  himself  uses  con  for  apud;  (42,2)  con  eundem;  (74,22)  con 
Gratianum;  (105,3)  con  Persas.  The  confusion  between  cum  and  apud 
is  regarded  as  especially  characteristic  of  Gallic  Latinity:Diez,  p.  889, 
Dieses  apud  fiir  cum  wagt  sich  meines  Wissens  zuerst  in  Formeln  und 
Urkunden  aus  der  Mitte  des  7.  Jahr.  hervor  und  zwar  nur  auf  franzo- 
sischen  Boden. 

^  See  Jeep,  p.  283. 

*  The  traditional  five  classes  are:  copulativae,  disiunctivae,  expleti- 
vae,  causales,  rationales;  so  Donatus,  IV  364,35;  Probus;  IV  143,26; 
Cominianus  ap.  Charis.  I  224,29;  Cledonius,  V  24,8  f . ;  Pompeius,  V265, 
18;  Augustinus,  V  495,27  and  V  520,38;  Victorinus,  VI  203,3;  Plotius, 
VI  444,24;  Audax,VII  349,12.  Diomedes,I  415,27,  gives  these  five  class- 
es, but  mentions  some  others,  inlativae,  optativae,  etc.  Palaemon, 
ap.  Charis.,  I  225,  16  f.  made  a  long  list;  and  so  did  Asper,  V  553,  11 
f.  Priscian  gives  seventeen  classes,  III  93,13,In  his  Epitome (72, 24)  Vir- 
gilius seems  to  recognize  'expletivae'  as  one   class;   expletiva   autem 


[71] 

et  ac  at  adque  ast  ce.  Of  these  the  last-named  is  Greek: (169, 
27)  extreme  enim  apud  Grecos  pro  et  semper  ponitur.  In  La- 
tin it  is  regularly  postpositive  or  enclitic;  in  its  own  langua- 
ge it  often  comes  first  (169,28f. ).  In  Latin  it  is  sometimes 
added  to  a  demonstrative  pronoun:  (170,4)  ut  si  dicas  hicce 
haecce  hocce^isce  eace  idee.  The  feminine  nominative  ea  is 
a  monosyllable  (170,13).  The  proper  spelling  of  the  copu- 
lative conjunction  is  ac  not  hac:  (170,17)  errant  etiam  qui 
in  copulativa  ac  aspirativam  h  scribunt,  quae  in  solo  ha- 
benda  pronomine  est. 

A  second  class  of  conjuntions  is  'discretivae':  (170,29) 
at  ast  sane  vero  porro  autem  ceterum.  A  third  is  'conplec- 
tivae':  (170,1)  cum  dum  nam  namqne  quia  quoniam  etenim 
enim  et  cetera.  There  are  also  'causales'  (170,17)  si  nisi 
nisitamen  verum,  etc.,  and  'rationales'  (170,21)  ergo  ideo 
idcirco  etc. 

He  speaks  also  of  'iterativae'  (170,11)  item  itemque  iti- 
dem,  etc., which  some  people  regard  as  adverbs :sunttamen 
apud  Affros  scriptores,  qui  haec  adverbia  potius  adfirmant 
esse  iterandi;  of  'adsimilativae'  (171,24)  ut  sic  ita  perinde; 
of  'revelativae':  (171,32)  quae  sensum  revelant,  ut  scilicet 
videlicet  illicet.  And  at  171,26  he  speaks  of  'participes', 
which  are  sometimes  conjunctions,  sometimes  adverbs: 
paidatim  utique  etiam  equidem  interea  praeterea. 

Interiectio  ^ 

In  his  Epistolae  (176,1)  Virgilius  says,  interiectio  est 
quidem  pars  orationis,  sed  tam  inusitata,  ut  nisi  quia  a 
Grecis  non  adnumeratur,  latina  esse  non  putetur.  The 
Greeks  reckoned  the   interjection  as  an   adverb.      As   we 


duas  ob  causas  sic  vocantur,  primum  quod  sensum  dictionis  expleant 
vel  quod  in  metris  locum  suum  obtineant  iuxta  illudCatonis'virile  quo- 
que  certari  conpetit  a^men'.hic  enim  'quoque'  praeter  metri  expletio- 
nem  nullam  causam  habet. 

1  See  Jeep,  p.  292. 


[72] 

saw  above  (p.l)  no  Roman  grammarian  follows  this  rule 
except  Priseian.  Traces  of  the  old  theory,  however,  are 
seen  in  such  statements  as  Sacerdos  (K.  VI  447,2),  Inter- 
iectio  est  pars  orationis  adverbio  persimilis,  qua  significan- 
tur  animi  variae  passiones,  quas  quidam  adfectus  dicunt; 
Diomedes  (K.  I  419,13),  plurimae  dictiones  incertae  inter 
adverbia  et  interiectione,  ut  est  heus  heu  eia  em.  lulius 
Romanus  ap.  Charis.  (K.  1190,14),  protests  against  the 
statement  that  the  only  reason  why  the  Romans  raised  the 
interjection  to  a  pars  orationis  was  because,  not  possessing 
an  article,  they  desired  to  have  as  many  parts  of  speech 
as  did  the  Greeks.  Donatus  (K.  IV  391,29)  defends  the 
Roman  usage  by  saying  that  huiusce  modi  voces  non  statim 
subsequitur  verbum  (cf.  what  was  said  of  the  adverbium 
above). 

The  interjection  is  usually  defined  as  pars  orationis  af- 
fectum (or  motum)  animi  (or  mentis)  significans.  Virgili- 
us,  however,  disdains  to  define  it,  and  contents  himself 
with  emphasizing  the  distinction  between  vae  and  ve,  eugae 
and  euge;  (76,1)  Interiectionum  significatio  et  quia  trita 
est  et  quia  pene  superuacua  atque  incondita  a  nostris  iudi- 
cata  est,  hoc  tantum  dico,  quia  vae  eugae  cum  significant 
adversa,  diptongon  in  clausula  sui  habebunt,  cum  autem 
V3  tantum  distinguit  et  euge  laetitiam  ostendit,  diptongon 
habere  non  est  necessarium.  For  this  distinction  between 
vae  and  ve  (interjection  and  conjunction)  see  Probus  (K. 
V  146,18)  and  Audax  (K.  VII  356,15).  The  distinction  be- 
tween eugae  and  euge  seems  to  be  an  extension  of  such 
discussions  as  these.  To  the  same  source  may  be  traced 
Virgilius'  remark  (176,14)  concerning  the  type  of  inter- 
jection, quae  est  lamentandi  cum  aspiratione  dicenda,  ut 
vae,  quae  tam  firma  est,  ut  a  multis  ambiguatur,  utrum 
nomen  an  verbum  an  certe  adverbium  sit. 

Many  grammarians  give  lists  of  interjections.  The  list, 
however,  given  by  Virgilius  is  unique  and  may  be  com- 
pared with  his  list  of  prepositions  given  at  173,7  f.  See 
p.  above. 


[73] 
Conclitsion 

It  was  said  above  that  Virgilius  the  Latinist  is  much 
better  than  some  of  his  own  statements  might  lead  us  to 
expect.  The  foregoing  investigation  shows  that  the  same 
may  be  said  of  Virgiiius  the  Grammarian.  To  begin  with, 
he  was  undoubtedly  a  better  grammarian  than  the  surviv- 
ing record  of  his  opinions  might  imiply.  The  text  is  bad, 
and  in  more  than  one  instance  it  has  evidently  suffered  by 
epitomizing.  It  is  evident,  of  course,  that  his  treatment 
of  the  parts  of  speech  is  not  complete.  Logical  arrange- 
ment is  frequently  neglected,  the  formal  statement  of  ac- 
cidentia is  generally  omitted,  occasionally,  even  as  in  his 
treatment  of  the  interjection,  we  have  only  a  few  scatter- 
ed observations.  It  is  clear,  however,  that  his  treatm.ent 
was  designedly  informal,  and  in  nearly  every  instance  ex- 
amination of  his  work  as  a  whole  has  proved  that  he  was 
by  no  means  ignorant  of  the  matters  in  question. 

His  ovv^n  theories  —  and  this,  no  doubt,  means  the  theo- 
ries of  his  teachers  —  are  surprisingly  conservative,  and 
his  own  knov/ledge  of  the  grammatical  tradition  is  surpris- 
ingly com^plete.  Kis  most  notable  lapse  is  his  treatment 
of  the  qualitas  of  nouns.  But  even  here  he  evidently 
knows  all  about  the  accepted  theory:  indeed,  we  ourselves 
understand  neither  the  meaning  nor  the  relevancy  of  this 
weird  discussion  until  we  have  gained  a  more  than  ordi- 
nary acquaintance  with  the  long  tradition  from  Vv^hich  it 
was  ultimately  derived. 

It  is  still  impossible  to  tell  v'hether  or  not  his  knowledge 
came  to  him  at  first-hand.  We  can  now  assert,  however, 
that  in  the  majority  of  cases  his  indefinite  nonmdli,quida7n, 
multi,  veteres,  etc. ,  represent  the  tradition  of  the  Gram- 
matici  Latini.  It  is  likely,  therefore,  that  they  Vv-ere 
known  to  his  teachers  at  first-hand,  if  not  to  himself.  We 
should  expect,  and  it  is  usually  so  stated,  that  the  influence 
of  Donatus  was  supreme.  This,  however,  appears  to  be 
an  exaggeration.     The  direct  influence  of  Donatus   upon 


[74] 

Virgilius  is  occasionally  traceable  in  a  technical  term  or 
some  arrangement  of  topics.  In  fact,  he  may  have  had 
more  influence  upon  him  than  any  other  one  individual 
grammarian  in  the  corpus  of  Grammatici  Latini.  But  his 
influence  was  by  no  means  supreme.  Virgilius  does  not 
always  agree  with  him.  To  a  certain  extent  he  is  a  genu- 
ine eclectic,  if  not  always  a  wise  one.  His  authorities, 
whether  he  himself  knew  them  by  name  or  not,  include 
everyone  of  the  Grammatici  Latini  who  could  have  been 
prior  to  his  time.  It  is  quite  possible,  therefore,  that  Vir- 
gilius and  his  teachers  were  if  anything  more  familiar  with 
the  tradition  of  Latin  Grammar  than  are  we,  and  that  they 
studied  it  with  care.  But  they  studied  it  without  profit, 
and  as  some  of  Virgilius'  statements  show,  without  com- 
prehension. At  its  best  Latin  Grammar  was  more  or  less 
mechanical  and  confused.  The  tradition  was  still  accept- 
ed, and  in  fact  venerated  by  Virgilius  and  contemporaries. 
But  they  occupied  themselves  with  small  points,  and  futile 
discussions.  In  their  search  for  the  mysterious  and  the 
ineffable,  so  characteristic  of  the  time,  they  extracted 
'hidden'  meanings  from  technical  terms  and  otherwise 
obscured  what  little  comprehension  they  may  have  had  of 
the  subject  as  a  whole. 


••••*.   f)  • 


•♦■■'>'•    '• 
'  ^  •  ■•   » .- 

[75] 


VITA 

I  was  born  at  High  Point,  North  Carolina,  September 
13,  1876.  I  entered  Guilford  College,  N.  C,  in  the  autumn 
of  1895,  and  received  the  degree  of  A.  B.  in  1900.  The 
following  year  I  spent  at  Haverford  College,  Pa. ,  and  there, 
also,  I  received  the  degree  of  A.  B.  From  1901  to  1906  I 
was  Instructor  in  Latin  at  Guilford  College.  I  then  spent 
two  years  in  the  study  of  Latin,  Romance,  and  Greek  at 
The  Johns  Hopkins  University.  I  was  then  granted  leave 
of  absence,  and  in  the  summer  of  1909  I  entered  the  Uni- 
versity of  Berlin,  where  I  spent  three  semesters  attending 
the  lectures  of  Professors  Wilamowitz-Moellendorff,  Diels, 
Vahlen,  and  Norden.  Since  1910  I  have  been  Professor  of 
Latin  in  Guilford  College. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  work  my  especial  thanks  are 
due  to  my  adviser.  Professor  Kirby  Flower  Smith,  and  to 
my  former  teacher.  Professor  Wilfred  P.  Mustard,  for 
their  unfailing  kindness  and  invaluable  criticisms.  I  have 
been  greatly  aided  in  the  interpretation  of  this  very  obs- 
cure Latin  author  by  my  work  in  Latin  Epigraphy  under 
Professor  Harry  L.  Wilson,  and  by  my  course  in  Folk 
Latin  under  Professor  Edward  C.  Armstrong. 

Clement  Orestes  Meredith. 
Baltimore,  Md.,  April  1,  1912. 


Printed  by  J.  M.  Purdie,  Guilford  College,  N.  C. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY, 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

r;n.'^°°'^*  ?"'  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 

fn  «^nn''''^'""^^"^'*  *.^^  ^^'""^  d*y  overdue,  increasing 
to  $1.00  per  volume  after  the  sixth  day.  Books  not  if 
demand  may  be  renewed  if  application  is  made  before 
expiration  of  loan  period.  oeiore 


^AN     6  t Sep  3  0 

Receivep 


C3 

— ' 

C"> 

>- 

<r! 

ct: 

C'l 

«S;^ 

%  ■- 

<  / 

—J 

5E-« 

a: 

1 1  1 

L._ 

1— 

tjj 

2: 

C  ^ 

"1  ■ 

CJ) 

ZD 

it: 

Li. 

c: 


•si 


25m-7 '25 


YC  00694 


b  Ij  ^  ^ 


~\>(\lAiL-c!^^^ 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


I!" 


